Sitting of 22 November 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
That the draft Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Environment and Safety Information (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Water and Sewerage Services (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Kirkhope].
Question agreed to.
2.35 pm
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the extremely cold weather in the country, could you advise hon. Members on how we can help our elderly constituents? Many pensioners in my constituency—the same applies in the rest of the country—are desperately trying to keep warm on small incomes.
Will the Secretary of State for Social Security make a statement about the cold weather payments? The payments are apparently triggered only if the weather is freezing for seven consecutive days, which is an absolute farce. The House of Commons must be concerned with the lives of ordinary people. If hon. Members are not concerned with pensioners who are desperately anxious about the freezing weather, we will not be fulfilling our duty. Will you advise the House how I can get a statement from the Secretary of State on the matter?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has moved from making a point of order and is now making a plea, as he has done on other occasions. I know of his deep and sincere interest in the matter. I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand that he must pursue it with the Government, either through questions or through Adjournment debates.

Orders of the Day
  Debate on the Address

    THIRD DAY
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:—
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament—[Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith.]
    Question again proposed.

  Local Government (Scotland and Wales)
  2.36 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): In the resumed debate on the Gracious Speech, I welcome the opportunity to debate the Government's proposals to reform local government in Scotland and in Wales. These are two extremely important measures and have both been subject to widespread consultation during the past three years. They will, I believe, be welcomed widely both in Scotland and in Wales, and will have long-term consequences in improving the quality, efficiency, arid coherence of local government and local democracy in both countries.
  I and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for local government in Scotland, who has been tireless in his meetings and discussions with interested parties on the matter, will listen closely to all that is said today about our proposals in Scotland, as will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh local government Minister regarding reform proposals in that country.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Secretary of State for Scotland said that the proposals for Scotland and for Wales had been well discussed during a three-year period. Will he therefore confirm that the time scale for both Scotland and for Wales will be identical, and that elections will be held on the same date?
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have proceeded independently in terms of the time scale, and indeed the detail and the content of our proposals. It is interesting that those are reconciled in a large number of areas. The Secretary of State for Wales will be replying to the debate this evening, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have heard the point made by the hon. Gentleman and will no doubt wish to address it.
  There has been a change of cast in the long-running play on the Scottish Opposition Benches. In welcoming the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) to our continuing deliberations on the matter, may I invite him to make it clear a little later where he stands on a number of specific aspects of the debate. He has a good opportunity now to put his party's approach to the matter back on the rails.
  Does the hon. Gentleman propose, if he forgets hi:3 lines, to stamp his foot and lead his hon. Friends on a fatuous walk-out on a spontaneous procession to No. 10

  193
  Downing street? If he does so, and he tells me in advance as well as the press, I will try to let him know whether my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is at home.
  So far, when pressed on his approach to the legislation, the hon. Member has responded, "Remember Maastricht." Well, some of us will never forget Maastricht. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will not think me insensitive if I point out that the Government won the Maastricht debate. The Bill is now law, as is our entire legislative programme for the previous parliamentary Session. We shall win with our proposals for local government reform in Scotland and in Wales. Indeed, it seems to me that the rebels on those proposals are on the Opposition Benches, not on the Government side. I have taken careful note of the many comments from the growing number of Opposition Members who support what we propose.
  However, there is one issue of great importance which I hope the Opposition will be willing to clear up at the outset. The House deserves to know where the hon. Members for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) stand on an issue raised at the opening of the debate on Thursday by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). He advanced a highly controversial constitutional proposition when he said, in speaking of the local government proposals:
  "An overwhelming majority of the hon. Members who represent Scottish and Welsh constituencies are against the Bills that will only be carried by the votes of English Conservatives who do not represent the people in the countries concerned."—[Official Report, 18 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 24.]
  The meaning of that seems perfectly clear. It is that only Scottish Members should vote in the House on Scottish matters and only Welsh Members should vote in the House on Welsh matters. That is a major constitutional change, which would have far-reaching implications, solemnly expressed by the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition in opening the debate on the Loyal Address—the highest profile debate of the entire parliamentary Session.
  I ask the hon. Member for Hamilton, for the avoidance of doubt—
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lang: No. I am addressing the point specifically to the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and his colleague the shadow Secretary of State for Wales. Is such a constitutional change the official policy of Her Majesty's Opposition? Do the hon. Gentlemen agree with it? I will give way to either of them if they would like to clear up the matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Perhaps they want to think about it. No doubt they will answer the point later. They owe it to the House to do so.
  Mr. Ron Davies: I should like the Secretary of State to deal with one particular point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I had a telephone conservation earlier today with the Secretary of State for Wales. As I understand it, the Secretary of State for Wales intends to make some announcement later today about the nature and perhaps the timetable of the Bill to reform local
  194
  government in Wales. At this moment we do not know precisely what are the proposals for Wales because they have already been changed several times.
  The Secretary of State for Wales said that he would put a letter on the Board for me and all other Members who represent Welsh constituencies so that we would be informed of the intention of the latest proposals. It is a matter of great regret that I have to say that there is no such letter on the Board for me or any of my colleagues. May I put it to the Secretary of State that we would have a much better informed debate if the Secretary of State for Wales was able to live up to the undertakings that he has given.
  Mr. Lang: I shall come to that matter shortly, and I shall deal with precisely those points. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that he should have been told privately through a notice on the Board before such a matter was announced to the House, I suspect that other hon. Members will be on their feet complaining to you, Madam Speaker, at the impropriety of such a step.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that you agree that it is important for a debate in the House to be an informed debate whenever possible. The Secretary of State for Wales is present in the House, as one would expect. Will you permit him, on a point of order, to tell the House at the beginning of the debate what are the major changes that he has in mind for Wales? For example, if he announced that there would be respectively Montgomeryshire and Brecon and Radnor unitary authorities, it might well change the view that some of us would take of the debate.
  Mr. Lang rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. May I respond to the point of order? The hon. Gentleman and the House know that we do not have statements from Ministers following points of order.
  Mr. Lang: If the hon. Member will contain himself, I shall be able to announce what my right hon. Friend proposes. He is putting the information on the Board for Opposition Members.
  What was noticeable about the reply from the hon. Member for Caerphilly was that he did not rise to respond to the point that I put to him; he rose to create a diversion.
  Mr. Wilson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lang: No. I want to deal with this point specifically.
  The implications of what the Leader of the Opposition said are clear. If only Scots may vote on Scottish business and only Welsh Members may vote on Welsh business, presumably only English Members may take part in English business. The Leader of the Opposition is a Scottish Member of Parliament. He represents Monklands, East—an area with one of the best known local authorities in Scotland. How, then, can he fulfil the role of the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition for the United Kingdom if he is confined in this place to decisions on Scottish issues? Still less could he fulfil the role of Prime Minister. He demonstrates more and more his unfitness for that office.
  The policy of the Leader of the Opposition on the matter is one of great irresponsibility. It would split the integrity of this House and this Parliament. It would create second-class Members of Parliament and lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. The House deserves an

  195
  answer today from the Opposition on that point. We shall await the necessary clarification with considerable interest and concern.
  Mr. John Home Robertson rose—
  Mr. Wilson rose—
  Mr. Lang: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North.
  Mr. Wilson: Having got the knockabout out of the way, as he is going down the road of devolved opinion, will the Secretary of State address himself to the views of Members of Parliament for Ayrshire, and more importantly the electorate there? Will he tell us at this advanced stage in the consultation procedure whether he has had any support for the proposed division of Ayrshire, as set out in the White Paper, other than the support of his hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), who, disappointingly is not with us today, presumably on the ground that he is studying the electoral boundaries of Dumfries?
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) was reluctant to address the point that I put to him. Matters of constituency boundaries are for consideration later in the progress of the Bill.
  I very much welcome the opportunity today to debate local government reform in Scotland and Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I will shortly introduce major pieces of legislation that will transform the structure of local government for the better. It is therefore right that we should take time before we necessarily become embroiled in the detail of the changes to discuss in more general terms today the current state of local government, its strengths and flaws and, by restructuring, the opportunities presented for its improvement.
  Discussion of the detailed provisions, particularly of the delivery of all the services and the new authority structure and boundaries, is important, but will more profitably follow the publication of the respective Bills. I would, however, like to take this opportunity to announce a number of refinements to the new local authorities, which we proposed for Scotland in our White Paper in July. They affect three areas: the boundary between south Lanarkshire and Glasgow; the boundaries of the city of Dundee; and the boundary between the Lothians and Berwickshire and East Lothian at Prestonpans.
  In each case, we have listened carefully to the detailed arguments put to us and studied carefully the facts that have been presented. In the first case, we concluded that the areas of Toryglen and Kings Park should more appropriately remain in Glasgow. We shall redefine that boundary to follow much more closely the line of the old county boundaries in the area.
  In the case of Dundee, we have acknowledged the importance of Camperdown Park to the city, recognising that it was purchased by trust moneys bequeathed to the city. We propose to adjust the boundary to include within the city not only the park but the adjacent recreational area of Clatto country park. To the east of the city, we have accepted the reasoned arguments that have been presented for the retention of the West Pitkerro industrial estate within the city. In relation to Prestonpans, we have recognised the problems to which the White Paper
  196
  boundaries would give rise and propose to adjust the boundary to include Prestonpans in Berwickshire and East Lothian.
  I believe that these changes will make far more sensible and effective boundaries in those areas.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I am glad that the Secretary of State has acknowledged that it was an absurd idea to take Prestonpans out of East Lothian. As it clearly makes sense to leave Prestonpans in East Lothian, will he now acknowledge that the case for Prestonpans to remain in East Lothian is every bit as strong as the case for Musselburgh remaining in East Lothian? They go together and it is idiotic to split them.
  Mr. Lang: Given that the hon. Gentleman's responsibilities are in representing Berwickshire, I am surprised that he is not aware of the considerable distinction. We propose to return Musselburgh to Midlothian, where it always used to be. That is a matter that he may wish to pursue later in the debate.
  Several hon.Members rose—
  Mr. Lang: I shall not give way unless the interventions deal specifically with those three points.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I do not wish to comment on the announcements that the Secretary of State has just made, but does the fact that he has said nothing about the local government boundary in Aberdeen, and in particular about Westhill, where 97 per cent. of the people are opposed to becoming part of Aberdeen, mean that he has a fixed mind about that, or is he still prepared to listen to the views of the people of Westhill?
  Mr. Lang: Of course the Government will listen to the debate on all boundaries as the Bill proceeds through Parliament in its Committee and other stages. The hon. Member represents an Aberdeen constituency. It was indeed the representation on Westhill of Labour-controlled Aberdeen council that cut so much ice with the Government. No doubt the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) will want to enlarge on that in due course as the Bill proceeds.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lang: I was about to come to the announcement for which the hon. Gentleman's hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has been waiting so eagerly.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has been listening carefully to representations and arguments from right hon. and hon. Members and many others in Wales about the boundaries of the new unitary authorities. He has decided to make some changes, including the transfer of Ystradgynlais and Llanelly Hill to mid-Wales, the creation of a larger Flintshire by transferring the communities in the north-east from Denbighshire, the transfer of Cynwyd and Llandrillo from Meirionnydd to Denbighshire, and a modest adjustment to the Bridgend-vale border. My right hon. Friend will comment further on those changes later in the debate. He also accepts the recommendation of the Council of Welsh Districts to have about 1,250 rather than 1,100 councillors elected on district ward boundaries.

  197
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has also decided to make a number of changes to the names of authorities. Important among those is the renaming of the proposed Glamorgan valleys authority to Rhondda-Cynon-Taff. That will ensure that those historic names are not lost from local government in Wales.
  Mr. Ron Davies: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Scotland for giving way. I understand that he is making this announcement on behalf of the Secretary of State for Wales because his pronunciation of Ystradgynlais and Llanelly Hill is better than that of the Secretary of State for Wales.
  None of the changes will address the real grievance that is felt all over Wales— in the communities of the valleys, in Meirionnydd, in the Vale of Glamorgan and in Montgomery— about the fact that the proposals do not meet the objectives of reorganisation. The proposals will sever those communities from any sense of self-determination. Are not the proposals hopelessly out of touch with the people of Wales?
  The Secretary of State has lost the argument in the Cabinet because he cannot even have the proposals brought before us in the House of Commons. As the proposals command no public support, should they not be dropped, and should not the Secretary of State go back to Wales and build on a consensus which does—if he is prepared to look for it—really exist?
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman has given us a foretaste of his wind-up speech this evening. No doubt those issues will be debated more fully as the matter proceeds through Parliament.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: My right hon. Friend should bear in mind that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) speaks for no one but himself in respect of the observations that he has just made. I speak on behalf of the communities of Ystradgynlais and Tawe Uchaf. Those communities will be delighted to hear the news from my right hon. Friend, who has recognised their strong links with the county of Breconshire and with Powys. There has been a cross-party consensus in that community of a kind that is beyond so many Opposition Members. The people in my constituency will be deeply delighted with what my right hon. Friend has said.
  Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing a more balanced view to bear on this debate.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State tell us a little more than the absolute zero that has been said so far about the boundaries of the Vale of Glamorgan and Bridgend? He described the adjustments as modest. There are four communities affected: Coychurch Lower, Ewenny, Saint Bride's Major and Wick. None of them is difficult to pronounce, so I cannot understand why we have not been told which ones are to stay with the borough of Ogwr and which are not. It is important as they all want to stay in Ogwr.
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman has made his point and he will be able to develop it as the debate proceeds. I touched earlier on the strengths of local government.
  Mr. Wigley: I realise the difficulty that the Secretary of State has handling a Welsh issue. In the consultation paper,
  198
  a model for Wales called the Powys model was brought forward that intended to create two tiers in that county to give a greater identity to the three districts there. The Secretary of State suggested that that model may be extended to other counties, which is of some concern to areas that may be affected by such a change. Will he say whether the model still stands in Powys and, if so, is it likely to be extended to other areas?
  Mr. Lang: I understand that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes, if those areas apply for it.
  I touched earlier on the strengths of local government, and there are many. The years of the present structure—since 1974 in Wales and 1975 in Scotland—have seen a remarkable development in the quality of many of services. In education, social work, roads, leisure and recreation, and many other services, the improvements in the availability and service and professionalism with which they are run have been enormous. In many cases, local government has also adopted innovative service delivery arrangements and is more and more developing new and more efficient management structure. I have seen many examples of that at first hand and I am delighted to acknowledge innovation and efficiency wherever I come across it.
  So why do we need change? That is a question that needs to be addressed not only by the Government, but surely by the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, as the reform of local government and the introduction of single-tier government is as much on their agendas as it is on ours. Of course, I cannot answer for any other party, but from the Government's perspective the need for change lies in the continuing inadequacy of a two-tier structure to tackle certain fundamental flaws that, in Scotland and elsewhere, have been present for a long time in the fabric of local government structure.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: In the context of change in local government, the Secretary of State has failed to mention the money it will cost, when pensioners are freezing in their homes and are threatened with VAT on fuel and power and there are people without roofs over their heads. Is it not a fact that, together with the English changes, we are talking of spending £2 billion of taxpayers' money that should be used to provide water and heat for pensioners and to provide proper local government services, instead of spending it on that wasteful idea just because the Tory Government want to shift democracy from local government and turn some of the services into enabling authorities? It is a complete waste of time and money, and the money should be spent on something more useful.
  Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman is still with us when I reach the issue of cost later in my speech, he will discover that the position is very different.
  In Scotland, Lord Wheatley's commission, whose work underpins so much of the present structure, identified correctly the flaws of which I have spoken. In the end, the solution that his commission proposed—our present two-tier structure—alleviated but did not cure the fundamental ills. It is worth remembering that, although Lord Wheatley finally recommended a two-tier structure, he did so reluctantly. In 1969, his commission concluded that a system of all-purpose local authorities "has many advantages", being the simplest of all to understand and to operate.

  199
  Thus, the legitimacy of the present structure was called into question from the moment its creators recognised the merits of the single-tier option. The Stoddart committee of 1981 expressed the same views more strongly, and almost a decade later the Scottish Labour party said the establishment of single-tier authorities would deal with
  "the continuing widespread confusion about which tier carried out which function."
  So what were the fundamental flaws that Lord Wheatley identified, and to what extent do they still blight local government today? The first flaw described by Wheatley was the complication inherent in the pre-1975 structure—in particular, the "criss-crossing", as he called it, of responsibilities, which made it difficult for the citizen and even the local councillor to know what local government was all about. Wheatley observed, rightly, that such a situation did not make for the best kind of local service.
  Although improved by the 1974 and 1975 reforms, problems of the sort identified by Lord Wheatley persist. Almost 20 years after the two-tier structure came into being, too many people in Scotland and Wales do not know which tier is responsible for which service. An ICM survey in March this year showed that one in four Scots did not know that district councils were responsible for cleansing, while one in three did not know that district councils had responsibility for housing—easily the largest district service. Even worse, the survey confirmed that two in five Scots did not know that regional councils were responsible for education—one of the most important local government services.
  Mr. George Foulkes: As it happens, I agree with the Secretary of State about the advantages of single-tier authorities, but does he agree that what he proposes is in fact not a single-tier system? Fire services and the police are to be dealt with by Strathclyde and water and sewerage by three non-elected boards. Only the remaining functions will be dealt with by the new authority. A three-tier system of authorities will replace the existing two-tier system: we are not talking about a single-tier system at all.
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is wrong, and when the Bill is published he will become more aware than he should be at present that he is wrong.
  The problem is compounded by the continuing lack of any clear definition of the services provided by districts and regions respectively. Different arrangements apply in different parts of the country and, for some services, an overlap of responsibilities continues to exist. Thus, across Scotland, both tiers of local government in different areas may have some involvement in building control, conservation areas, countryside matters and nature conservation, development control, industrial and economic development, leisure and recreation and a number of other services besides. In Wales, there are similar problems. Duplication occurs in development control and planning, in economic development, leisure and so on.
  Confusion is inevitable. One small example sums up the problem very well: regional councils are responsible for lighting adjacent to roads, but districts are responsible for some footpath lighting. No wonder the consumer of local services is confused, and no wonder friction, waste and delay have for too many people become the hallmarks of the present two-tier system.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I agree with the Secretary of State that the delivery of service is the critical factor for the public as a whole. In that context, does he think that the Scottish public understand that only 1,000 new houses were built in the public sector last year? Housing is a critical problem with which all hon. Members have to contend. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore specify in any future statement the amount of money that will be made available through revenue support grant, and perhaps by the abolition of capital debt, to enable our authorities, whatever their shape, to address that vital problem?
  Mr. Lang: The public would understand the position very much better if the hon. Lady's party painted the complete picture instead of selecting parts of it to suit the case that she has advanced.
  The second flaw in local government is its illogicality. Despite various bites at the legislative cherry since 1974-75, the present divisions of functions between the two tiers of local government in Scotland and Wales remain confused. In terms of its impact on efficient and effective service delivery, the separation of housing and social work is perhaps the most notorious consequence of the present two-tier structure.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lang: I must make progress; I will give way later.
  There are other examples. Responsibility for education, libraries and leisure and recreation services, all of which are closely linked, is split between districts and regions. The same is true of consumer protection, weights and measures and food standards. The fact that, after 20 years, it has still not been possible to create a sensible and clear-cut division of responsibility reflects only the impossibility of achieving that under a two-tier structure.
  Then there is the expense of the present system. It was the Wheatley commission's view that the complications and illogicalities inherent in the structure of local government before 1975 made the whole system more expensive than it would be to run. The same applies today in Scotland and Wales. There is general acknowledgment among commentators that a single-tier structure can be less expensive to run than a two-tier structure. That is, of course, very much in line with what common sense dictates.
  I will refer to transitional costs, but on long-term savings there can be no dispute. Fewer councils, fewer staff, fewer buildings, less bureaucracy, less confusion, less duplication and greater efficiency all point to lower costs. The one consistent point of all studies by all the consultants commissioned by all the councils which had done so is that of savings. It is incumbent upon any Government to seek more cost-effective means of delivering services, and we cannot ignore the potential for efficiency savings when they are identified.
  Mr. Brian Donohoe: Does the Secretary of State regard it as efficient to allow such a system to occur as we have in Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles? That is the system that he wants to introduce in the rest of Scotland.
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is rather silly to refer to the Western Isles as though that area is an example of what single-tier local government would apply in the rest of

  201
  Scotland. He knows perfectly well that the population in the Western Isles is very much smaller than would be ideal in a single-tier authority. Over the years, all Governments have recognised the importance of giving a sensible local-tier structure to the islands to take account of their geography and particular problems.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lang: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I really must press on.
  Mr. Bruce: The Secretary of State is making a good case for single-tier authorities, with which many hon. Members would probably agreee. Nevertheless, what criteria are applied to determine the optimum size for a unitary authority? Why is it that Eastwood is just big enough and Gordon, which is exactly the same size, is apparently too small? Are the views of local people taken into consideration? Do the Government listen only to the views of the Scottish Office or Conservative central office? When will local people have a say?
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman knows that local people have had considerable say and no doubt will continue to do so. However, I give him two examples. In the Western Isles we have local authorities of about 20,000. The largest local authority in Scotland is Glasgow, with 620,000. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that we take account of local circumstances, local demography and natural local boundaries, including, where possible, reversion to the previous historic boundaries and response to local allegiances.
  I now refer to the matter of costs, not least because it is the centrepiece, we have been told by the media, of the Opposition's attack in today's debate. Even in that matter there is hope of progress. Already, the wilder claims of last summer are being moderated. The successive claims of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East of £400 million, £500 million and then £600 million in successive weeks are now down to the specific figure in mid-October of £126 million, although still accompanied by lurid claims about the consequences for individual council tax payers.
  On 8 November, in the Labour party's position paper, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) settled on a figure of £200 million. That is £4 million above the upper estimate of our consultants and it is almost double the lower estimate, but it is a very big improvement on his earlier calculations. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman spoils that improved performance by wildly exaggerating what it means by way of the so-called massive burden for council tax payers. He is wrong in several important respects and by quite alarming amounts.
  First, the hon. Gentleman assumes that all the burden falls on the council tax payer. He forgets that more than 85 per cent. of local government current expenditure comes from other sources, mainly from central Government. So he is wrong by a factor of between five and six. Secondly, he assumes that all those costs will fall in one year. In fact, as everyone else acknowledges, they will be spread over several years. So he is wrong again, this time by, shall we say, a generous factor of three or four.
  202
  Even at the height of the transition in 1995-96 and 1996-97, total transitional costs are unlikely to exceed £30 million to £35 million in any one year. At its height or at the most, the cost of reform will be less than half of 1 per cent. of total local government current expenditure. That is using the starting figure of the hon. Member for Fife, Central.
  Labour Members ignore the other side of the balance sheet—the savings arising from fewer councils, fewer staff and greater efficiency. The figures will vary according to who is compiling them, but all the consultants' reports to all the councils indicated savings from the single-tier structure that they favour. Our consultants' estimates ranged from £40 million to £66 million per annum. The margin is wide because it depends so much on decisions by new authorities and therefore it is hard to be precise.
  It is important to recognise that the savings are linked to the transitional costs. Indeed, most of the transitional costs—almost half of them—arise from staff rationalisation and early retirement. If the Labour party's higher cost estimate is right, it is unarguable that the higher savings estimate resulting from fewer staff will follow. Over the first five years, the savings for Scotland will total over £300 million. That will amount to savings of about £1 billion from the reform of local government in Scotland over 12 years.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does the Secretary of State realise that, after the poll tax fiasco, no one believes any figures that he gives? Does he realise that when the Tories talk about savings they mean cuts—cuts in services for the elderly, cuts for people requiring education, cuts in housing and cuts in our local government services?
  Will the right hon. Gentleman answer a specific point put to me by the Scottish Association for the Deaf? One centre dealing with hearing impaired children and others has been set up in Edinburgh but services the whole of Lothian. The association knows that that service, with high-tech equipment and high training, simply cannot be dispersed to a number of smaller authorities. How does he answer the charge that there will be no service in many of the new authorities because he will not make it statutory?
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman indulges in his usual policy of scaremongering and alarming those who are aged or infirm. I point out again that the figure on which I have based what I said is the one from the Labour party's position paper.
  For completeness, I should say that there is a slight time lag between the transitional costs and the savings. There must be an initial investment to secure the savings. But once the investment is made—and central Government will provide for almost all of it—it is recovered very soon and the savings go on year after year for council taxpayers.
  I make an offer to Labour Members—I am a reasonable man. In the interests of harmony and enlightenment, I will accept their estimate of transitional costs of £200 million—although I believe that it is on the high side—if they in turn acknowledge what that actually means. It means, first, there will be almost no extra burden for council tax payers; secondly, it will be spread over several years; and, thirdly, it will be recovered and then substantially exceeded by the savings that flow from the costs. So I invite the hon. Member for Hamilton to ratify that agreement and we can then move on to other more productive and relevant issues.
  Mr. George Robertson: Does the Secretary of State know that all the reports of the Local Government Commission in England include the following statement:
  "the experience of successive reorganisations in local government and the national health service suggests that transitional costs tend to be higher in practice than had been expected"?
  Does he accept that?
  Mr. Lang: If transitional costs are higher, it will be because redundancies and early retirements are greater and, therefore, savings subsequently will be greater still.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lang: I will not give way. I have given way many times and I do not wish to detain the House much longer. [Interruption.] In that case, I hope that the hon. Gentleman—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is not giving way. Only one hon. Member at a time can have the floor.
  Mr. Lang: I have given way many times and 1 must press on to allow other hon. Members to take part in the debate.
  I have another question for the hon. Member for Hamilton: where does he stand on COSLA's policy of non-co-operation? As he knows, his predecessor and his party are strongly committed to it. Indeed, it was they who caused the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities so unwisely to abandon the sensible policy of co-operation that it pursued up to the end of July. We had just had a productive meeting with it and we had agreed to a further one and to the setting up of a working party on finance.
  Then, alas, COSLA's president, Charles Gray, was suddenly prevailed upon to stand on his head. Proclaiming the non-co-operation policy, as reported in The Scotsman on 31 July, he said:
  "It is ludicrous to think that we should co-operate on the implementation of these disgraceful proposals and I have no doubt that councils throughout Scotland will take a similar stance."
  From standing on his head, he was soon turning cartwheels because, sadly for him, within one week one of the most senior conveners, Mr. Duncan Macpherson of Highland region, said:
  "COSLA has been down this road before and this a course of action that would inevitably have to be abandoned sooner or later."
  Sadder still, Sir Robert Calderwood, the retired chief executive of president Gray's own council of Strathclyde, intervened with an open letter to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) in which he said:
  "I would praise you for changing your mind and if you are going to do it, as I believe you inevitably will, it will be so much better if you do so sooner rather than later."
  At the end of August, COSLA and the Opposition parties convened a meeting to redefine what non-cooperation meant. A letter of clarification was issued, which prompted The Scotsman to report:
  "Disarrary remains over the bid to boycott council reforms."
  Councillor Peter Peacock, the secretary of the non-aligned group of councils, was prompted to say:
  "I am afraid the letter does not take matters much further forward and disguises the fact that COSLA is split down the middle on this issue."
  Even COSLA's vice-president, Andrew Tulley, said:
  "To continue to use the word non-co-operation is pointless."
  204
  As tensions rose, 20 Labour council groups met at the beginning of September and the president tried another redefinition. Further guidelines were agreed. "The real test," said Mr. Gray,
  "is not how many councils have publicly declared policies of non-co-operation, but how many are actually co-operating with the Secretary of State."
  Six days later, The Scotsman reported that half of Scotland's local authorities opposed the non-co-operation policy. There was another COSLA meeting on 17 September and another definition from the president. Councils should express their opposition
  "clearly and unequivocally in whatever ways suit their own circumstances and which they feel will be most effective."
  So in a last-ditch attempt to save their non-co-operation policy—
  Mr. Henry McLeish: How exciting.
  Mr. Lang: It does not excite me, but it seems to excite COSLA.
  In a last-ditch attempt to save their non-co-operation policy, the hon. Member for Fife, Central pitched in on 6 October, urging councils to respond to a Government request for reform costings, saying:
  "They must write in, operating the non-co-operation policy to the letter and spirit of what was decided."
  By the end of that month, half the authorities in Scotland were co-operating with the Government.
  What a pitiful and humiliating episode for the convention and for the Scottish Labour party. That sorry saga of short-sighted posturing has done nothing to help local government in Scotland. COSLA exists to speak for local government to central Government and to do so with one voice. Driven by the Labour party, it has failed to fulfil that function and it has split its members down the middle. A policy of non-co-operation by COSLA will do nothing to slow or impede the progress of our reforms to the statute book, but I hope that the hon. Member for Hamilton will be big enough to admit, when he speaks, that his party's policy on non-co-operation was wrong and has failed. Let him admit defeat now, before more damage is done, and let him urge COSLA to come to its senses.
  Mr. George Robertson rose—
  Mr. Lang: No. I will allow the hon. Gentleman to recant at length in a few moments.
  It is striking, as one examines the Welsh and Scottish proposals, how far two separate exercises have arrived at similar solutions. In each case, we are proposing a pattern of authorities that range significantly in size, population and character, reflecting different characteristics, geography and local loyalties in each country. In each case, we have decided, where appropriate, to return to historic county names and areas and in both countries we have recognised the potential for a co-operative and enabling approach to service delivery, rather than an assumption of the exclusive provision of services by each individual authority. We have both recognised that authorities should have a much more flexible legal framework, enabling them more readily to purchase services and expertise from each other, and our respective Bills will provide for that.
  Progress in the debate and progress in the reform of local government will be helped enormously if we have answers to the questions that I have raised today with the hon. Member for Hamilton. I shall remind him of what those questions are. First, does he share the view of his party leader that only Scottish Members should vote on

  205
  Scottish matters? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Secondly, does he agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central that the cost of local government reform will be £200 million? If so, we can all agree on that figure and on what it implies, and put the issue behind us. Thirdly, does he agree that his party and COSLA made a terrible mistake in their policy of non-co-operation, and that they should now admit failure and abandon it? The House will listen closely to his answers, and he will be judged by what he says, or fails to say, today.
  The proposals that my right hon. Friend and I will shortly introduce will unlock the unrealised potential in local government—the potential powerfully to represent the people in their areas, organise co-ordinated and effective services and provide real value for money for local taxpayers. Those are goals worth striving for, and they should be supported by all people with a genuine concern for local government.
  3.20 pm
  Mr. George Robertson: When welcoming me to the debate, the Secretary of State for Scotland was unwise enough to mention Maastricht. One cannot find a braver man than one who dares to say that Maastricht was a success for the Government; the House and the nation know that the Government got Maastricht through without the social chapter only by using the confidence vote, which the Prime Minister had to resort to, so I am not unhappy if he wishes to remind us of that.
  Nothing that the Secretary of State said today makes either relevant or necessary the commitment in the Queen's Speech to legislate for the reorganisation of local government in Scotland and Wales. Although the burden of my remarks will deal with the Scottish legislation, my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) will tackle the details in Wales, should he catch your eye, Madam Speaker.
  This exercise is an extremely costly, completely unwanted, totally unnecessary and cynical exercise in Tory political protectionism. Simply to try to tie up a few safe havens for that dying breed of Conservative council bosses, Scotland is to be thrown into the expensive turmoil of a wholly irrational butchery of the existing 16-year-old council set-up.
  That the legislation should be the centrepiece—indeed, in Scotland, the only piece—of the Government's legislative programme is a remarkable display of wrong priorities. They call it "back to basics" and endlessly parrot sound money and family values to us. When the national finances have been impoverished by ministerial incompetence—to the extent that millions of ordinary families throughout the land will face the burden of value added tax on their fuel bills from April next year—and Scotland's child care laws are crying out for the urgent improvements that were completed in England in 1989, what on earth are we doing in this 1993-94 Session of Parliament with a Queen's Speech that promises us more tax, more disruption and more upheaval, simply to put Scottish and Welsh councils through the mincer? What for? Reform, they say. The definition of reform is an improvement—something that will take us further forward. That is not what we are talking about in the case of Scottish local government.
  206
  The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) is the Minister responsible for Scottish local government, which reminds me of the old eastern European joke in which an Hungarian politician said, "We're about to create the post of Minister for the Navy." When someone pointed out that Hungary was a land-locked country, the politician replied, "After all, the Soviet Union has a Minister for Justice, and Bulgaria has a Minister for Culture, so why can't we have a Minister for the Navy?" So the Scottish Conservatives have a Minister for local government.
  In The Scotsman last Wednesday, he said:
  "Our fundamental aim is to establish a strong network of local councils which are both sensitive and accountable to the needs of the people they serve."
  Apparently, that is the Government's objective in this exercise. Well, that is not the view of Councillor Brian Meek, the eloquent, pen-pushing journalist and a Conservative member of Edinburgh district council, who wrote in The Herald in July of this year:
  "So let's get on with the gerrymandering argument. Did Mr. Lang and his Ministers seek to give their party the best possible chance under the new set-up? Of course they did. Why shouldn't they?"
  There we have it, that is plain enough language—blunt, stark and brutally honest. It is a sight more honest than the Government have been up to now by dressing up gerrymandering as public interest.
  I do not know whether Councillor Meek was one of those mentioned by Sir Michael Hirst in that letter to the Secretary of State for Defence which was uncovered in yesterday's edition of Scotland on Sunday. Sir Michael Hirst, a former Member of the House, said:
  "Sadly, grandness and support of the Party seem in inverse proportion and I never cease to be amazed at how many fair weather friends the Party has."
  Frankly, I never cease to be amazed that the Scottish Conservative party has any friends at all. With such openly honest friends as Brian Meek, the Secretary of State for Scotland does not need many enemies.
  The Government show absolutely no shame about dressing up an assault on local democracy as a drive for efficiency and accountability. They abuse words such as "cost effective" and "local services" when they are engaged in naked political manoeuvring. As they embark on yet another pick-pocketing exercise on the Scottish public, the party which is currently polling in Scotland at below the level of Kim Campbell's annihilated Canadian Tories, is exposed by one of its own top supporters as simply giving
  "their party the best possible chance."
  Let me come to the issue raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition last week. I would issue a public warning to Conservative Members from England, whose votes will be required to get the Scottish and Welsh Bills through the House against the majority votes of hon. Members representing both countries. We all have equal votes in the United Kingdom Parliament, but the warning still stands.
  Not very long ago the same wonderful, silk-tongued people in the Scottish Office sold another idea as being an efficient, accountable, cost-effective change in local government—a change that required blind obedience from English Members to get it through the House, against all the warnings that we deployed against it: that idea was the poll tax, the community charge, the memory of which should send a shiver down the spine of every Tory Member who values his seat.

  207
  The poll tax was born in Scotland out of panic and ideology; it also was reared on fraudulent, implausible claims about its fairness and effectiveness; and it was to be visited on Scotland first. Then, even in the face of its incandescently spectacular failure in Scotland, it was to be transplanted on to the rest of the country. History tells us the rest of the tale.
  I warn Conservative Members to be wary—to be scared stiff—about providing the Lobby fodder for the suicidally bright ideas that they are asked to support by the bewhiskered, funny-money men and smooth ex-bankers camping out in the Scottish Office.
  Mr. Rod Richards: The hon. Gentleman seems to be implying that the Conservative party does not have a mandate to govern in Scotland and Wales [HON. MEMBERS: "It does not."] I am delighted that Opposition Members agree with that. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, apart from the general election of 1945, the Labour party has never had a majority of seats in England? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Callaghan and Wilson Administrations did not have a mandate to govern England?
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman's hearing is almost as bad as his political judgment, because I did not suggest that Conservative Members have no right to vote. I simply issued a warning, based on experience, of what will happen to them if they do not listen carefully to the opinion expressed in Scotland and Wales by the majority parties for which people have voted.
  Conservative Members have a free right to vote, as they did for the poll tax; as a consequence, they paid a rich price in all parts of the United Kingdom. English Conservative Members should remember that those guys on the Government Front Bench gave them the poll tax, with all the misery and political fall-out that came with it. Today, the Government are offering those same hon. Members the gerrymander tax, which will be just as lethal to them.
  Who will pay for the gerrymandering extravaganza that we are about to embark on? Last week, the Minister with responsibility for local government in Scotland said in The Scotsman:
  "Cutting costs is not, however, the main objective of the reform."
  Too true it is not. He went on:
  "What is abundantly clear is that the reform will pay for itself within about five years and will thereafter save money."
  Not a single person in Scotland believes in the sort of accountancy fiddling that is going on.
  In the same article, the Minister said that he would "further refine the figures". However, the figures change every time a Minister speaks. Today, the Secretary of State told us that we should accept the figure he gave of £200 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) was using Government figures when he proved that, even on the basis of the Government's wildly optimistic figures, the cost to the council tax payer will be substantial. The Minister, however, has now informed us that he has refined the figures yet again. New figures were quoted in The Scotsman last week and new optimism was expressed. Not a jot of new evidence was provided, however, to back up those figures.
  It is not surprising to discover that not a single expert agrees with Ministers' rose-tinted expectations. Even the Government's own supporters do not take the figures at face value. Mr. Arthur Bell is a prominent Scottish
  208
  Conservative. He is no fair weather friend—one is not a Tory in Lanarkshire and called a fair weather friend of the Tory party for very long. Last week, he addressed a meeting at the Strathclyde business school in Glasgow and said of the Government's range of possible savings:
  "If anyone came to me with a gap as wide as this I would be amazed. I would not wish to make major changes in my business without being more accurate."
  In this case, Mr. Bell is spot on; he is absolutely right.
  The apparently precise savings figures are bogus. The Secretary of State confessed that in a letter to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), in which he was a lot franker than he has been so far in public. He wrote:
  "the eventual costs and savings arising from reorganisation will depend to a large extent on the activities of local authorities themselves. Most of the decisions on matters such as staffing levels and accommodation requirements will be a matter for individual councils, not central Government. Consequently, it will be for local government to determine the exact level of savings accruing from reorganisation."
  What that actually means is that the Secretary of State does not know; he has not got a clue; all he says is that it is up to local government to determine the costing. If that is the case, he should listen to what local government representatives are unanimously telling him about what the reforms will cost them, the country and the individual council tax payer.
  Mr. Lang: It is plain that the hon. Gentleman did not listen closely to what I said. I explained that the gap in the estimate of costings is so wide because it will depend on the decisions of 28 separate local authorities.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I will listen to local government. According to the views of local authorities to which I am listening, if Tayside became a single-tier authority, it estimates that it would make a saving of £8 million. Angus district estimates that it would make a saving of £5 million. If Dundee were to become one of three authorities in Tayside it estimates it would make a saving of £2 million and Fife estimates that it would make a saving of £5 million should it become a single-tier authority.
  Mr. Robertson: I shall deal with local government figures later. It is worth underlining the bogus and spurious figures. The Minister responsible for Scottish local government said that, having looked carefully at all the evidence and refined their original estimates to reflect input from local authority interests and others,
  "our conclusions are that one-off transitional costs of between £120 million and £186 million are … quickly offset by ongoing annual savings of between £22 million and £66 million".
  Those are precise estimates for something that will lie purely and simply in the hands of local government.
  However, I base my figures not on that optimistic crystal ball gazing in which the Secretary of State for Scotland indulges, but on the views of the Scottish branch of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, which puts forward solid, detailed arguments to show that the Scottish council tax payer and taxpayers in general will pay heftily.
  The Government still will not say who will pay and the Secretary of State has come out with a new formula today, saying that central Government will pay almost all of the transition costs. He should then be in a position to say what "almost all" means—is it part, half, two thirds, three

  209
  quarters, 90 per cent? As the Government do not even know what it is, they cannot be in a position to tell us. We must guess who will pay.
  Will the Treasury pay? Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer pay for the cost of Scottish local government reorganisation when the Government have a £50 million deficit and, according to leaks from every Department, must even consider cutting dole payments and invalidity benefits? Will they pay for the extravaganza of producing a Tory-redrawn map for Scotland? That is hardly likely. Are Scottish Office and Welsh Office budgets now sufficiently expandable to take account of the money? That, too, is hardly likely. The answer that everybody in Scotland and Wales expects, is "you pay", the taxpayer pays. "Tax today, jam tomorrow"—the usual Tory slogan.
  The figures in CIPFA's document are based not on the Government's fantasies but on the concrete example and experience of the reorganisation of the metropolitan counties, which took place in England and Wales not so many years ago. The most respected body in its field, it produced in March a devastating indictment of the Government's Touche Ross calculations. It said that savings had been overstated and potential costs understated. It said that the margin of error was considerable and that the report did not properly assess the likely cost of reforms. It backed up all its claims with the facts and figures that the Government so glaringly have not produced for Parliament or the people.
  I offer two examples from CIPFA's report. First, on retirement and redundancy costs, CIPFA says that Touche Ross
  "seriously understates the potential costs associated with this item."
  It uses the actual, not the imaginary, experience of the much less complex reorganisation in the metropolitan counties, Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and Avon and shows that the figures range between 1·7 to 2·7 per cent. of expenditure. In Scotland, the equivalent is between £125 million and £200 million on that item of expenditure alone.
  The second heading is on winding up existing authorities. The White Paper says that Touche Ross calculates that that would cost £88 million in Scotland—only 2 per cent. of local authority expenditure. But it does not even bother to try to prove it. For a much less complicated reorganisation in Greater Manchester, the cost over five years totalled £13·5 million. The equivalent in Scotland would be £275 million.
  So for those two items alone—many more items have been catalogued—the one-off transitional cost would be between £400 million and £675 million. That is about a half a billion pounds on two items alone. That is on the recent calculation of the very local government experts, who the Secretary of State for Scotland says will determine the costs and savings.
  The shambles has one message for the people of Scotland and of Wales: very soon, there will be more taxes, bigger burdens, more waste. It is all to pay for a sordid exercise in gerrymandering in the Borders. The gerrymandering was casually and openly admitted by Brian Meek and is scarcely a secret in Scotland, but it is a scandal nonetheless. It will appear all the more so when the
  210
  outside dispassionate world considers the redrawn Tory map of Scotland, which was described in the editorial of The Scotsman newspaper on 21 August as:
  "A map drawn to no higher democratic principle, no deeper logic, than the electoral advancement of the Conservative Party in Scotland".
  That put it bluntly and accurately.
  In the Borders, Berwickshire is gouged out and joined up with a part of East Lothian. The regional convener of Borders regional council, that well-known radical and left-leaning figure the Earl of Minto, said:
  "The decision to amputate Berwickshire from the Borders is in my opinion the worst decision of any kind that I have encountered in my life".
  In Lothian, gerrymandering descends to pure farce. Even our unfair weather friend Brian Meek found it difficult to swallow what was happening in Lothian. He said:
  "I have to say that I found the proposal to gouge out a slice of East Lothian and send it, via the Balerno corridor, to join up with Mid and West Lothian a little on the contrived side."
  He goes on to say—this is really getting back to basics:
  "Nor does there seem to be a strong political case for it"—
  as if that would justify the policy in some way.
  In Tayside, despite the changes announced by the Secretary of State today, Dundee city has still lost some of its major commuter communities in Monifieth and in Invergowrie. That leaves the city to pay the hefty bills for services provided to those people who are now taken out of the city boundaries.
  In Central region, the obsession with keeping an 81,000 people-strong Stirling safe haven means that a forced marriage will occur between Clackmannan and Falkirk, two distinct and different communities separated by a river estuary and joined only by a bridge that happens to be in Fife region. That bridge, the one connecting point between those two joined-up counties, is scheduled to close for six months in the year that the new council is expected to come into existence.
  In Strathclyde, the Alice in Wonderland redrawing goes on apace. Ayrshire is artificially split in two, with South Ayrshire just happening to be Tory-controlled—for the moment. Kyle and Carrick district council has 113,000 people, while North Ayrshire will have a council representing 263,000 people. East Renfrewshire, the home, redoubt and last resting place of the Minister with responsibility for Scottish local government, has a mere 88,000 people. That basic building block in the contrived structure will sit beside West Renfrewshire with 265,000 people and South Lanarkshire with 317,000 people. Helensburgh has been wrenched out of Dumbartonshire. King's Park and Toryglen have been rescued from the original plan to put them in South Lanarkshire and out of Glasgow. The Minister responsible for local government was quoted at the Scottish Tory conference as saying that councils were to be more visible and more accountable to their electorates.
  I think that it was again Mr. Arthur Bell who said:
  "We have got to get it right this time because this will be local government into the next century. What is proposed is crazy."
  Last week, Lothian regional Tory councillor Mr. Ian Buchanan said:
  "The problem is not that the reforms do not go far enough, but that they are going in the wrong direction completely. The White Paper is a backward looking document, a plan for the last century not for the next century".

  211
  One statistic says it all. The average population base for the 25 unitary authorities would be 204,000 people, but for the five Tory safe havens it will be 95,800. That tells us everything.
  There is one measure that was to be in the legislation for Scotland but is not—full-scale English and Welsh-style privatisation of water. That was the Secretary of State's ambition. All along, that has been the Government's ambition and, although Ministers shake their heads and feign innocence, we all remember that day in March when the Prime Minister told us:
  "I have no reason to doubt that water privatisation in Scotland will be effective and efficient, as elsewhere."—[Official Report, 9 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 783.]
  That was what the Prime Minister said, but the Government were warned off by united and decisive Scottish public opinion and the message finally got through: the Scottish people want water in public hands. The Systems 3 opinion poll, which was commissioned by COSLA in the past couple of weeks and published this morning, shows beyond any shadow of doubt that 95 per cent. of all Scots want Scottish water in Scottish local government hands. Of those interviewed who said that they would vote Conservative at a general election tomorrow—perhaps a very small sample—86 per cent. said that they wanted to keep water in Scottish local authority hands.
  I appreciate that the danger of water privatisation has not gone away. We will stay alert to the Government's plans and their intentions. The Government now know that their own political annihilation would be the price to pay at the next election if they were to dare to tamper with Scotland's water and the way in which it is controlled. The new quangos for water are a paving measure, but they are a climbdown in the face of a public opinion scalding that even this Government have never experienced before.
  What is the agenda for the turmoil and upheaval that this reorganisation will cause in Scotland? Who will pay the price, the real cost of the confusion that will be created? Scottish industry has already expressed serious reservations. The Institution of Civil Engineers wrote to the Government earlier this year, making this point:
  "the case for reorganisation has not been made and an independent committee of inquiry should be set up to fully investigate the present system before further changes are made."
  Other business people have expressed serious concerns about the fragmentation of a system that they know and understand and, on transport infrastructure, that they have come to value, especially in regard to what has happened in Strathclyde.
  What is in this reorganisation for the thousands of Scots who use concessionary travelcards all over the country—the 340,000 elderly people who benefit from that provision? What is in it for school pupils and parents in localities where catchment areas are being scythed to pieces by new boundaries? What will be the future for special education in the tiny council areas? What will happen to voluntary organisations?
  It is a recipe for chaos and waste—chaos in the name of efficiency, disruption in the name of cost-effectiveness and quangos in the name of democracy. George Orwell should have been writing about 1994, not 1984.
  Democracy is in question. This reorganisation, if it gets through Parliament, will be the paving measure for yet another lurch to the non-elected state, with more quangos taking decisions but being accountable to no one and more joint boards meeting away from the public searchlight, offering less accessibility but more bureaucracy.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: 'The hon. Gentleman is waxing eloquent about joint boards and joint arrangements, but his party's paper, "The Future of Local Government", says:
  "In a limited number of cases it will be necessary to examine joint arrangements. In different circumstances police, fire and water and sewage services may require these joint arrangements."
  Mr. Robertson: We know that there will be hordes of those arrangements, not only those that I have mentioned but many more. Joint arrangements already exist in certain areas. However, the sheer multiplication that will be involved in the reorganisation, with tiny councils buying in services, makes everything else pale into insignificance.
  I thought perhaps that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), whose roots remain firmly in the central belt, might have enlightened us about events in the Greater Glasgow health board. I will come on to that in a moment, because that is extremely relevant to what we are talking about. More and more boards and committees will be packed by more and more Conservative cronies.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: My hon. Friend mentioned the year 1994. Is he aware of a rumour that is running around the Welsh media that the Secretary of State for Wales is to announce this evening a delay of 12 months in the proposals? Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to press the Government on whether there is any truth in that rumour?
  Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend will have noticed that the Secretary of State for Wales scarpered off quickly and, who knows, he may be now holding a press conference. However, that is a relevant question, and I hope that Ministers will rise to dispel that rumour.
  At least in Scotland—I say this for the Secretary of State for Scotland—we know precisely what the timetable is to be. Welsh Members on both sides of the House have a right to know the timetable for reorganisation in Wales. I will give way to the Secretary of State for Scotland if he wishes to comment on the matter. The right hon. Gentleman may have been spending so much time rehearsing Welsh place names that he has not got round to asking any real questions to do with Welsh reorganisation.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has addressed the question of the lack of co-operation of local authorities in their own execution. The right hon. Gentleman and I appeared on BBC Scotland's "Upfront" television programme last week, and the Secretary of State was asked penetratingly by Ms Kirsty Wark why he was not abandoning next year's regional council elections. The Secretary of State's reply was very interesting. He said that they could not possibly pre-empt the will of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman implied that the Government do not know whether regional councils are to be abolished, and therefore the Government could not take such pre-emptive action. Yet the Secretary of State expects councils in Scotland to conspire and co-operate in their own demise before even they know precisely what the form of local government will be at end of the process.
  Mr. Lang: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for intervening again, but I am sure that he would not want to mislead the House. The point I made was that the legislation could not pass through Parliament before the date when the regional elections were due to take place. If the hon. Gentleman gives me an assurance that the

  213
  Opposition will assist in the early implementation of the legislation, the way would be clear to move on those regional elections.
  Mr. Robertson: The answer is no. There will be no co-operation in the early implementation of a reorganisation that can only cause chaos and which is purely bound up with the political purposes of the Scottish Conservative party.
  It is interesting to note that decisions cannot be taken about regional elections, but apparently everyone else must assume that the Bill will go through in the exact form that is proposed by the Government.
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): The hon. Gentleman has delved into Welsh matters. In view of what he has said, why is the Welsh Labour party in favour of the unitary principle?
  Mr. Robertson: The answer is that we want to create assemblies in Scotland and in Wales. A parliament or assembly would have the right to decide on the best way or reorganising local government. That is the way to do it, and not in the gerrymandering fashion that is proposed.
  I am sure that Welsh colleagues will find it interesting beyond belief that the Minister can stand up to make such a debating point, but he cannot inform the House what the time table for local government reorganisation is in Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "They've had 14 years."] Fourteen years is surely plenty of time to think up an answer. I cannot help thinking that the Secretary of State for Scotland's training in the Footlights at Cambridge could have been more useful, and perhaps he could give some lessons to his colleagues in the Welsh Office in slick footwork.
  Democracy is in question because of the incredible proliferation of jobs and more jobs for the Tory fair-weater friends. No more sinister evidence could we have of the implications of that Tory non-elected state than events within the Greater Glasgow health board in the past few weeks. A top official in the largest health authority in Great Britain is summarily dismissed in his absence after he has allegedly questioned the level of expenses claimed by his chairman—the Secretary of State's golfing friend, whose business has just gone into receivership.
  The dismissal of that chief executive reaches the ears of Ministers not through any formal channel but by means of a press release from the Greater Glasgow health board. The Minister who receives the press release is said to be furious at it. Two weeks later, that top official, who was so bad and so useless in his job that he had to be instantly dismissed in his absence, is found a new, unadvertised, senior and extremely well-paid job with the Minister's own National Health Service Executive. Then the very man who dismissed him, and who will now not face the legal action that the dismissed official said that he intended to take, tells us all how wonderful the original chief executive was and how complimented he is that he has been found a job inside the national health service.
  Nobody, but nobody, answers questions—not the chairman of the Greater Glasgow health board, Mr. Bill Fyfe, not the Minister, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, not even the golfing friend of the chairman, the Secretary of State for Scotland. Public money is spent; jobs are lost and suddenly found; reputations are damned and then
  214
  resurrected. "Back to basics," the Government say, their tongues in their cheeks and their hands in their wallets. They tell us all to go back to basics.
  I shall ask the Secretary of State for Scotland some pointed questions, but, before doing so, I remind him of the words of the Secretary of State for Wales in the House of Commons only a few weeks ago:
  "Everyone who operates in the public sector has a clear responsibility to be scrupulously correct in all his or her dealings and to be seen to be above reproach."—[Official Report, 19 October 1993; Vol. 230, c. 148.]
  So I ask the Secretary of State the following questions. Why was Mr. Lawrence Peterken sacked? Why was that dismissal instant? What had he uncovered or suspected about Mr. Fyfe's expenses? Who was on the audit committee which cleared Mr. Fyfe of the reported allegations? Did Mr. Lawrence Peterken agree with the decision taken by the audit committee? Was the decision to dismiss Mr. Peterken taken unanimously by the Greater Glasgow health board? Was the job offer at the national health service executive made conditional on the dropping of any legal action against the Greater Glasgow health board? Why was the job of special projects manager at the national health service executive not advertised? How many other jobs have been made in that department without any advertisement?
  I ask the Secretary of State those questions because they are serious. The public in Scotland, in line with what the Secretary of State for Wales rightly said, deserve answers to them. There is no other forum than Parliament in which to seek the answers. There is no means by which the taxpayer can question the Greater Glasgow health board other than through the Cabinet Minister who appoints the people who run the board. The Secretary of State is due, in all conscience, to give an answer to those questions to the House. They are important questions. Only Ministers can give answers to them. But perhaps Parliament will have to take more measures to seek answers.
  Today, I have written to the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee of the House to ask whether he too will investigate the circumstances in the Greater Glasgow health board. Where public money and public duties are involved, Parliament is the only custodian of the public interest and the Secretary of State for Scotland is answerable to Parliament.
  We are told that, with 160 clauses, the Scottish local government Bill will be the biggest Bill presented to Parliament since 1979. We are told also that the Government want to get it through both Houses before the summer. I must tell the Government that we will fight it line by irrelevant line. The gerrymander tax and the gerrymandered map will not get to the statute book easily or quickly.
  We will not filibuster to delay the Bill, but, on behalf of those who will have to pay the additional tax and live with the map should the Government get their way, we will ensure that the Bill gets the scrutiny that it needs and should have had before it ever came before the House.
  Throughout the country, we will expose this taxing, fiddling and conniving Government for what the proposed legislation tells us plainly that they are: a Government without support and without credibility, now wedded in desperation for their survival to a measure reeking of one thing alone—crude political self-interest. The people will judge them severely.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to raise with you a serious issue that has arisen out of the opening speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he made a few brief remarks about the changes that will take place to boundaries in the local government reorganisation in Wales.
  I have already intervened to ask whether, during the debate, the Secretary of State can be more precise about what he described as a modest adjustment to the border between the Vale of Glamorgan and Bridgend. I have since been told behind the Chair that, of the four communities affected, only one will be put back into the Bridgend area.
  I ask whether you, Madam Speaker, consider that the way in which that information was relayed in the Chamber today is good enough for the standard of debate that you oversee?
  Madam Speaker: That was a good try, but the hon. Gentleman must be fully aware that it is not a point of order. There has been no breach of our Standing Orders. He will have to tease out of Ministers the information that he is seeking, so that it can be properly recorded in Hansard.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether, in that process of teasing me, we could tease the Minister for a while. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) raises is a valid one, because we now face the prospect of having a debate up to 9.30 pm on proposals about which we are not fully aware. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he will be making boundary rearrangements—changes to the published map—in respect of Powys, new Flintshire and the Vale of Glamorgan, to which my hon. Friend referred.
  I understand also that the Secretary of State has indicated to the media his intention to change the announced timetable. That puts us in an impossible position. We are supposed to be spending the time between now and 9.30 pm debating the proposals, yet we do not know what, in definition, they will be. Neither do we know the timetable that the Secretary of State is proposing. The Minister of State, Welsh Office is present. The Secretary of State must have taken him into his confidence on these matters.
  I ask that you, Madam Speaker, put your expression of concern direct to the Minister so that we can perhaps get a statement from him, particularly on the timetable and the boundary changes.
  Madam Speaker: The point that the hon. Gentleman is raising is a serious matter, but it is not a point of order. It is a matter for debate, and it must be developed during the course of the debate. If the Minister seeks to make a statement, of course I must listen to it, but that is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Wigley: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. You have often said, as have your predecessors, how unsatisfactory it is if information is given to the press outside the Chamber on matters that are relevant to those being debated in the Chamber and is not made available to hon. Members who are taking part in the debate. That appears to have happened in this instance, particularly with regard to the timing of the introduction of the change for Wales.
  In those circumstances, might not it be appropriate for the Minister of State, Welsh Office to make a statement?
  Madam Speaker: I have only what the hon. Gentleman tells me to go on. I am not aware of statements that have been made to the media in any form at any time. I can say only what I am aware of, and I am not aware of that. Therefore, I must assume that, if the Minister wishes to make a statement later, he is going to do so. I cannot interrupt the debate at this stage unless the Minister is going to make a statement.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. You have already said that there is no point of order and that it is entirely a matter for debate. During the debate, I hope to help the hon. Members who have raised various points.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: On a different point of order, which I think you will decide is a genuine point of order, Madam Speaker. When the Secretary of State for Scotland opened the debate, he criticised the Labour party for its views on who should participate in votes on issues relating to Scotland and, for that matter, to Wales. Can you confirm that, at the present time at least, Standing Order No. 86 remains applicable, and that, unless the Government decide to try to avoid a Standing Order which has been a Standing Order of this House for 90 years, all Welsh Members will be members of the Standing Committee which will deal with the Welsh local government Bill when it is eventually allowed into this democratically elected House?
  Madam Speaker: Certainly at the moment I can confirm that Standing Order No. 86 is correct, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has just outlined.
  Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: Does it relate to Standing Order No. 86?
  Mr. Hain: No—
  Madam Speaker: In that case, I call the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson).
  4.5 pm
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said when he opened today's debate, the debate on the Gracious Speech on Thursday was indeed truly revealing with regard to the current constitutional thinking of the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). His contribution in that debate will be long remembered. He announced new constitutional arrangements that would come into force should he ever become Prime Minister.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland so eloquently said earlier, the conclusion of those constitutional arrangements must mean that English Members will vote only on English matters; Scottish Members will vote only on Scottish Matters and—calthough the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East did not say this—no doubt Welsh Members will vote only on Welsh matters and Northern Ireland Members will vote only on Northern Ireland matters.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland gave the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, the hon.

  217
  Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), ample opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box and say whether they disagreed with his conclusion. Neither of them took that opportunity. Perhaps when they reply to the debate later, they will have thought more about the subject, will have telephoned Monklands and have a line on that.
  Will the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen confirm that, should the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East ever become Prime Minister—a Prime Minister representing a Scottish seat—he would never take part in, vote in or answer questions in respect of purely English legislation? Will they confirm that on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 3.15 pm the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East would not answer a question on a matter of purely English or Welsh content?
  Would there be an addition to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's usual standard reply about his engagements? Would another standard reply enter our proceedings? When asked a question on an English matter by an English Member, would the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East have to say, "That is a matter which I, as a Scottish Member of this House, am unable to comment upon?"
  The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East was talking nonsense last Thursday. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen know that. He was making a mockery of the constitution. He was either playing to the nationalist supporters on the Benches behind him or he was playing to the nationalist supporters in his proposed new constituency. Either way, the House has a right to know from the Opposition Front Bench whether that is the latest constitutional thinking of the Labour party. The least that we can expect is an admission that the right hon. and learned Gentleman got it hopelessly wrong. When the Opposition spokesman replies to the debate, I hope that he will clear up the confusion.
  Over the summer, the debate that has developed in Scotland on local government reform has been fascinating. Each of the Opposition parties has tried desperately to deny its own past commitments to single-tier councils. They have tried to distance themselves from their manifestos which appeared last April. They have been encouraged by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which is desperate to get in on the act.
  It is worth reminding the House about COSLA's role. First, it announced a grand campaign of non-co-operation which we were told would force my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to abandon his plans. When that did not work, COSLA redefined what it meant. When that did not work, it relaunched it. When that did not work, COSLA redesigned it. When that grand plan of non-co-operation did not work, COSLA reassessed it. In November, no doubt, it will bitterly regret it.
  A more serious debate than the one offered by COSLA has taken place, and it was most revealing. Over the summer it emerged and became apparent to all that there are two different visions of local government on offer to the people of Scotland. First, there is the vision of my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues that offers strong, accountable and genuine local government. Secondly, there is the confusing vision of two tiers that leads to remote regions, buck-passing between region to
  218
  district and district to region and people being passed from pillar to post and back again. My right hon. Friend's plans offer a strong, obvious, councillor-elector relationship and, most importantly, a council with which people can identify. Crucially, under those plans, there would be no centralisation and no drain of power from the communities to the centre or from the peripheries of Scotland to the central belts.
  The councils proposed would be the most powerful local authority units that Scotland has ever seen. They would be responsible for services that directly touch the lives of everyone living in Scotland—from social work to education, from leisure and recreation to roads, from libraries to fire and from police to planning. All those services and more would be the responsibilities of elected local councillors in town halls throughout Scotland.
  The Labour party offers a different vision. Every time its manifesto commitment of single-tier local authorities is quoted, as we heard from the hon. Member for Hamilton, Labour Members shout back and rejoice in yelling that it would occur only with a Scottish assembly. What impact would a Scottish assembly have on local democracy in Scotland? What would be the future for local accountability in a city such as Aberdeen or a town such as Inverness if there were an assembly in Edinburgh? It would have all the relevance of the present Lothian region and the sensitivity presently shown by the Strathclyde region.
  Fortunately, we do not have to wait for the nightmare of a Scottish assembly to occur to assess its impact, because in fourteen and a half years, the Opposition have not been idle. They decided what they would do and let us know vividly. The assembly would be one of many and varied powers. The Opposition tell us that it would take powers from this House relating to agriculture, fishing, social security, health and, according to the latest document from the Scottish Constitutional Convention, it would take electricity generation—from whom, we do not know. Probably, the Opposition would not deny any of that.
  We have not heard today and certainly did not hear during the summer that, in addition to the powers that the Opposition propose to take from the House to give to a Scottish assembly, they would flesh the powers out with other powers and responsibilities that are currently in the hands of local authorities across Scotland. We are told that they would take education, fire, police, housing, local roads, transport, planning and industrial development to Edinburgh. Opposition Members murmur, but it is no use denying those proposals.
  Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman needs some education. The Labour party proposed that the legislative power currently at Westminster, in relation to all the services that he described should be transferred from Westminster to Edinburgh, but that the administration of all those services would remain with the local authorities. If the hon. Gentleman is to continue in such a vein of ignorance, he should sit down and let some of my hon. Friends speak.
  Mr. Robertson: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would say that. Does he expect the House to believe that the proposed assembly, sitting in Calton Hill, would merely take the administrative power? No, it would not. It would take every other power associated with those responsibilities and the hon. Gentleman knows that full well.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has gey few friends on the Opposition Benches?
  Mr. Robertson: Absolutely. All the proposals are contained in the Scottish Constitutional Convention document of September 1990, which the Labour and Liberal parties have signed. It is a charter for destroying local democracy in Scotland, for stripping local councils for all meaningful powers and responsibilities and for moving decision making from town halls and council chambers to the royal high school in Edinburgh. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Stale is so determined to sell it off.
  The threat facing local government in Scotland is the threat of a Scottish assembly, which in order to have any meaningful role in the life of our nation would have to plunder and claim for itself the responsibilities of local authorities. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has virtually just admitted that. The story does not end with the powers that those who support the establishment of a Scottish assembly have already said it will take and are intent on its taking.
  Paragraph 4 of the Scottish Constitutional Convention document—signed by the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats—says:
  "It must be stressed that this paper represents a summary, and is not an exhaustive listing, of the range of powers which should be held by Scotland's Parliament. Other areas will require… further consideration by the Convention or by Scotland's Parliament itself."
  That provision would see powers drain away from local communities in Aberdeen, Dundee, Dumfries, Inverness and Perth to a centralised Scottish assembly on Calton hill. That is the real threat to local accountability and democracy in Scotland.
  Mr. James Wallace: As one of those present who was involved in the constitutional convention, I suspect that I have a better understanding of the document than does the hon. Gentleman. Does he accept that the interpretation given by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) was accurate and that it is the legislative powers of this House that will be transferred to the Scottish parliament? Does the hon. Gentleman further accept—if he insists on quoting—that the documents contain copious references to the need to strengthen local democracy in the localities and communities of Scotland? He should not be so selective in his quotations.
  Mr. Robertson: I was in no way selective. I merely quoted the constitutional convention. If the Opposition parties do not like it, no wonder it is falling apart.
  To prove my point and in conclusion, I can do no better than to quote one of Labour's great Scottish local government gurus. Writing in the Glasgow Herald of 6 March last year, Councillor Jean McFadden, the current leader of Glasgow district council and a past president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, gave the following view:
  "I think we have to be very much on our guard here. There
  may well be a tendency for the Scottish Parliament to suck up power from below."
  That says it all. That is why my right hon. Friend's reforms are welcome, why they will work and why they will endure.
  4.16 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: You will recall, Madam Speaker, that in the absence of the Secretary of State for Wales we tried to secure from the Minister a statement about the timetable. I hope that we shall get such a statement from the Secretary of State immediately. If word is to be sent out to the Welsh media that it is planned to postpone the Welsh proposals by 12 months, every hon. Member is entitled to know it. It is essential, and a natural courtesy to the House—especially those Welsh Members present—that the Secretary of State should intervene briefly to advise us whether he intends to announce a 12-month postponement. All of us invite the right hon. Gentleman to tell us rather than simply sending word out to the Welsh media, which would be an insult to the House. I am offering to give way to the Secretary of State if he is willing to intervene.
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): I have made no statement on the subject to the Welsh media. I will make a statement to the House when I make my speech.
  Mr. Rowlands: I think that that means that there will indeed be a 12-month delay.
  Going "back to basics"—back to old-fashioned values—has become the theme of our debate on the Loyal Address. I should like to remind the Secretary of State of one or two of those old-fashioned values as they relate to institutions, to communities and to the behaviour of Parliaments and Governments.
  A number of us recall very well the previous occasion on which Welsh local government was reorganised, under another Conservative Government. The Bill foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech is designed to unravel everything that was done in 1972. I remember the reaction in the communities: in Pembrokeshire the reaction was strong, and the very concept of Dyfed was rejected. Ministers were unwilling to listen to those objections. Now, 20 years later, they have come back to the House with the intention of unravelling all those changes.
  If nothing else, the right hon. Gentleman should approach local government reorganisation with humility, and be willing to listen and heed. He does not represent anybody in Wales, but he represents the Government, and he has been given the transient job of Secretary of State for Wales.
  The alteration of institutions and the constitution of a community and society is rather more fundamental than average pieces of legislation. A good old-fashioned thought that we should plant in the Secretary of State's mind is that, generally speaking, it is a good old-fashioned basic value that in such circumstances one tries to seek consensus. One reaches out and does not exercise the brute force of a majority in the House to railroad through institutional and constitutional changes that will be embodied in such a major local government reorganisation Bill.
  Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman rightly underlines that it is a major constitutional Bill. I saw the Secretary of State nodding his head to that. In the circumstances, is it not outrageous that it should be introduced in the House of Lords?
  Mr. Rowlands: It is a total disgrace. No doubt Standing Order No. 86 will also be waived. That shows how

  221
  miserable and insensitive the Government are to Welsh sensitivities and parliamentary procedures relating to Wales.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Gentleman has been in this House for a very long time. I would be grateful to know whether he has ever heard of what was supposed to be a major debate in which the Secretary of State for Wales was to make an announcement on timing, according to a letter which I have just received at 4.20 pm, at the end of that debate. How can we debate the issue if we are not told what the announcement on timing is before we hear the Secretary of State's speech?
  Mr. Rowlands: The hon. and learned Gentleman mentions my longevity in this House. I have spent most of my time trying to achieve parity for Wales with Scotland. We have now reached the absurd situation in which the Secretary of State for Scotland announced changes to Welsh local government, and the Bill will be piloted through the House of Lords by a Scottish advocate. We have gone back 10 steps as a result. It is an outrage. In the spirit of old-fashioned basic values, the Secretary of State for Wales should think again about the way he is treating the House and Welsh Members on this issue.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: I must admit that I am a little surprised that my hon. Friend expected anything else from the Secretary of State for Wales or the Welsh Office. As my hon. Friend knows, many Opposition Members have spoken to the Secretary of State and to his predecessor, who said that he wanted to consider adjustments in the light of hon. Members' representations. As my hon. Friend says, the Secretary of State is listening to no one. He is railroading the measure through on the basis of what has been given to him by his civil servants. He has altered the original proposals of his predecessor, the present Secretary of State for Employment—another Englishman—without taking into consideration the views of the people who will be affected by the legislation.
  Mr. Rowlands: Like me, my hon. Friend represents one of the great traditional communities. Our communities are outraged at the way in which our genuine, legitimate and non-partisan representations to the Secretary of State appear to have been totally ignored.
  We put a basic and fundamental point to the Secretary of State: when one is changing institutions and constitutional arrangements within a community and society, particularly within a Welsh community which the right hon. Gentleman does not represent and cannot claim to represent in any shape or form, one should heed as well as listen to the voices of those who make a sensible, rational case on behalf of changes to such proposals.
  We accept that the Secretary of State has power to railroad the Bill through the House and that he will have power to waive Standing Order No. 86, but in doing so he will offend one of the basic, fundamental principles which were supposed to be the centrepiece of the Queen's Speech—the sensible, responsible, accountable relationship that should occur in such issues. Since the Secretary of State announced his proposals, he has failed to find a single supporter for one of his major changes to local government. He cannot find a local authority, community organisation or any other body from Blaenau Gwent,
  222
  Merthyr or Rhymney to speak for the heads of the valleys communities. No one supports the proposal to which he is apparently sticking.
  He has managed to achieve consensus on one matter—consensus against his proposal. In the spirit of good, old-fashioned, basic and decent values of the sort that he has talked about, why has he refused to listen to the unanimous voice that stretches across the heads of the valleys, which opposes his proposal for an unwieldy local authority called the heads of the valleys?
  Incidentally, it is interesting that the statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland, which has been sent to us, refers to changing the names of authorities:
  "Important among these is the renaming of the proposed Glamorgan Valleys authority to Rhondda-Cynon-Taff, thus ensuring that those historic names are not lost from local government in Wales."
  Alongside those historic names there is an equal, if not greater, historic name—Merthyr Tydfil. It predates most of the other valley communities in its development, its history and the role that it has played, but it is to be wiped off the map.
  We are not simply asking for palliatives or changes to place names. In Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and, indeed, other authorities across the heads of the valleys, we believe that our sense of civic identity is tied closely to the responsibilities and powers of local government—they go hand in hand. Merthyr Tydfil was a powerful county borough. Even in the Local Government Act 1972 it was especially recognised as a library authority. It maintained certain responsibilities and powers because of its distinctive role and the role that it played as the centre of the heads of the valleys. Therefore, it is not simply an authority that can be abolished at the stroke of a pen or in a schedule to a Bill.
  In the Welsh Grand Committee, many of us made a passionate and reasoned case to change the boundaries. I thought that, when there was some consensus on the change, the Secretary of State would accept it. However, he has not done so, unless he makes further announcements. I should be grateful if he could say whether these are the only proposed changes to the White Paper. He would reduce my speech by a few minutes if he briefly intervened to say that these changes only foreshadow other more significant changes of the sort that we have recommended to him. If he does not rise to his feet, I assume that he will not announce anything further this evening.
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman is right: I will not make any other big boundary announcements this evening. My proposals reflect many of the representations that I heard, and many communities will be grateful for the changes that I am making. Of course, many parliamentary processes lie ahead, and it is always worth while for the hon. Gentleman to make his points.
  Mr. Rowlands: I have been here nearly 26 years, and I have been in the same Department as the Secretary of State. Frankly, one knows that it is more sensible to make a change to the schedule to a Bill now, rather than to wait and debate the schedule, when the Minister will use English votes to override our further representations. If he is willing and game to say that he is still open-minded on a fundamental issue such as the so-called heads of the valleys authority, we will take every parliamentary opportunity to press our case.

  223
  The Secretary of State has already made some announcements. He should realise that, in the case of the heads of the valleys, the representations received have been unanimously opposed to his proposal.
  Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, is it not against all parliamentary conventions that on such an issue, the Secretary of State can make announcements at the end of the debate, whereas we are all waiting to participate in a debate on the proposals before us? If it was just sheer arrogance on the part of the Secretary of State I would accept it, but surely we need to know what we are talking about.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a point of order for the Chair. The Secretary of State is responsible for his own actions.
  Mr. Hain: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State for Scotland announced that Ystradgynlais was going back into Powys from the West Glamorgan authority, which affects my area. He made no statement about Tawe Uchaf. That may be because he cannot pronounce it, but I would like to know.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order either.
  Mr. Redwood: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene. I thought that it was for the benefit of the House if the Secretary of State for Scotland outlined the changes that I am proposing. I have put the statement on the Board. I believe that there are further details in the Vote Office so that we can have an informed debate. I thought that that would be to the benefit of the House because I thought it much better that hon. Members should see what I was going to say later this evening and be able to discuss it rather than being in ignorance. I hoped that hon. Members would appreciate that.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy. May I put on record the fact that I made recommendations to the Secretary of State and I am grateful that he has at least seen in part the wisdom of the case that we put to him. It would be impossible for us to have a reasonable and rational debate today without foreknowledge of the changes that the Secretary of State was proposing to make. I am grateful that he has taken steps to ensure that we are all aware of them.
  It would be helpful, however, in furtherance of the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) is making—and helpful to the rest of us—if the Secretary of State would clarify two outstanding matters. The first is whether he is prepared to reconsider changes in addition to those that he has announced. The second, which is of fundamental importance, is whether he intends to stick with the timetable that was announced by his predecessor to have elections in 1994, with the new authorities taking effect in 1995.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is still not a point of order, but I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will take note.
  Mr. Rowlands: We all know about the nature of government; we know the nature of legislative processes. We have all, in one way or another, been involved in them
  224
  for a long time. We know that the Secretary of State, having heard all the representations, will not make new proposals during the parliamentary debate.
  I have made the case for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney; I argued that as powerfully as I could in the Welsh Grand Committee, and I am trying to argue it now. I cannot, therefore, produce any new arguments for the Secretary of State during the parliamentary stages of the Bill. If a process of repetition works, I shall repeat the argument over and over again until the right hon. Gentleman surrenders, but there must surely be a more rational way to change the Secretary of State's mind. That is to tell him that he has heard our case and I do not understand why he has not heeded it. He cannot possibly claim that he has any representative authority to introduce a local government unit of the type that he has proposed. It was not proposed by his predecessor; it has not been proposed by anyone to him and it has not been supported by anyone since he announced it.
  In the spirit of the back to basic values consensus, therefore, I do not know why the Secretary of State is being so stiff-necked about the issue of the heads of the valleys, especially as there is in this case—unlike others—a virtually agreed alternative. He could take some refuge in refusing to change, if he were to say, "There are too many discordant voices offering too many alternatives. I will stick to my original plan because it is the least contentious—everyone else cannot agree on the alternative."
  In this case, however, there is virtual agreement on the alternative, which is to divide the so-called heads of the valleys authority into a Merthyr Rhymney and a Blaenau Gwent authority. Its size would be of the same order as that of Monmouthshire, next door to us. What is behind it? I said it before and I repeat it to the Secretary of State. We have the same right of feeling about a civic sense, about roots, about identity, about the relationship between those identities and those roots with local government and local government reforms, as any shire county.
  Why does the wonderful word "shire" apparently roll off the mouths of Conservative Members as if it had magical properties, allowing authorities the size of Monmouthshire in Wales? The Government do not heed our views when it comes to an urban community with an equally powerful sense of tradition, civic pride, identity and roots. Our people believe that their community is the basis from which local government services should be delivered. We are not a shire, so we cannot exercise the functions that an authority of a similar size, such as neighbouring Monmouthshire, can exercise.
  What is the prejudice against the concept of an urban community with traditions as strong as any shire? Why are those traditions being ignored? Why do they not have the same force in the argument? Is it because we tend to be socialist and because we voted against the Tories? I hope that it is not from any sense of party.
  Mr. Redwood indicated dissent.
  Mr. Rowlands: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If it is not, why does he not listen to us and heed what we are saying? It will not do much damage to his Bill or to the system of local government. I think that we were delivering local government services in Merthyr Tydfil long before the Secretary of State knew where it was. [HON. MEMBERS: "You think?"] No, I am sure that that is so. We really believe in local government—we believe in

  225
  ourselves and in the concept of our borough status. That status survived 1972, although we lost powers to the county, and it even survived the attempted changes in the mid-1930s. I am writing a book on that period. So why, in 1993, does the Secretary of State abolish us just like that, without any meaningful support for his alternative?
  Mr. Rogers: Surely the answer to my hon. Friend's question is that it is straightforward political gerrymandering. The Secretary of State may not be concocting boundaries to get a Conservative vote in Wales, because he will not get one in our areas, but he hopes that, by appealing to the people of the shire counties, maintaining shire boundaries and being biased towards them, he will scrape—
  Mr. Alex Carlile: He will get no votes in Montgomeryshire.
  Mr. Rogers: Yes, I know that we have a couple of odd ones here and there, other than Tories. The Secretary of State is hoping to keep Monmouthshire and he is hoping that he will be able to do it with his own little bit of gerrymandering.
  Mr. Rowlands: Perhaps I am naive, but I am not accusing the Secretary of State of gerrymandering, because that is a futile exercise in our neck of the woods. I therefore do not understand why he wants to be so offensive to us, and why he insists on driving through a proposal that offends us so deeply and which has no support.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: On the subject of the Conservatives' apparent affinity with the shire counties, I invite my hon. Friend to comment on this anomaly. The shire county of Monmouthshire is to be shorn of all its urban parts. What could be the reason?
  Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend is tempting me to stray into other territory. I understand his point. That change has aspects of gerrymandering, but I do not think that that could be the purpose for the change in the case of the heads of the valleys authority.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that it would be difficult to establish an accusation of gerrymandering in my constituency? As I understand it, every community being returned to my area is represented by Labour councillors.
  Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman is making my case for me. If the Secretary of State can make a sensible and rational decision in Ystradgynlais why, in the name of heaven, can he not do so on behalf of the communities that I represent? That is all that I am asking. Why can he not do that for us? I am a great believer in the shires; I am not against them. My wife is a Carmarthenshire girl and was a most bitter opponent of the changes. She has frequently bent my ear on the absurdity called Dyfed and some members of the Government seem to have recognised and acknowledged that absurdity. It was pointed out to them way back in 1972 that it was nonsense.
  Let us not create another nonsense called the heads of the valleys authority, which has neither support nor consensus, except a consensus against. If the Secretary of State's nods and so-called pleasant approach to these
  226
  matters, and the changes he has made already, are to mean anything, I hope that he will say to us tonight that not only will we have future parliamentary processes but that he has listened to our case, not only in the Welsh Grand Committee but in the House this afternoon.
  Our case is backed and warmly welcomed by the majority of Members on the Opposition Benches, and I hope that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans)—who lives adjacent to our communities and knows them very well—and the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) will support us in an all-party plea to the Secretary of State to change one fundamental aspect of his proposals: to abandon the absurd merger of the heads of the valleys authority and to restore and retain the powerful civic sense represented by the names of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.
  4.40 pm
  Mr. Rod Richards: The Gracious Speech was widely welcomed in Clwyd, North-West and by all sensible people, particularly the passage which referred to the reorganisation of local government in Wales.
  This is perhaps the fourth time that Welsh Members have discussed the reform of local government in Wales and I had hoped that, as the Opposition wanted the debate, we would hear something new from them. Alas, it was not to be. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said—it seems to be the Opposition's view—repetition works. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that repetition will not work as far as I am concerned, not even if he becomes blue in the face.
  Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman said that sensible people would welcome the changes that have taken place in his area—so I am not sure why he is accepting them. Our arguments are repetitious because they are the best arguments; they are arguments which need to be consistently and properly made. We will not fabricate arguments just to make them new. The values on which our arguments are based are there to see; they were transparent to the Secretary of State's predecessor and to the Secretary of State and have been completely and utterly ignored.
  Mr. Richards: Conservative Members would be more inclined to listen to the arguments of the Opposition if they did not spend their time trying to undermine the Government's reform of local government by instructing their surrogates in the county councils not to co-operate with the borough and district councils in Wales, thereby making life more difficult.
  The publication of my right hon. Friend's Bill is eagerly awaited, certainly in my constituency. Colwyn borough will form a new unitary authority with the neighbouring Aberconwy borough and Rhuddlan borough council will form the new unitary authority of Denbighshire. There will be a sigh of relief from my constituents when this comes about because they are sick and tired of not being able to identify which local authority is responsible for which service, as are constituents elsewhere in Wales.
  One of the concerns of my constituents, particularly in Colwyn borough, is that when the new unitary authority is formed, the number of members from Colwyn will equal the number of members for Aberconwy. There is some concern about that equal status. As to the rural areas of Colwyn borough, there is a general acceptance that

  227
  Trefnant will and should become a part of the new Denbighshire. My constituents are anxious that the five wards in Colwyn borough should continue to exist, because fewer wards in the rural areas of Colwyn would make it difficult for the new represenatives to operate.
  My constituents are also concerned about the status of the county boundary between Clwyd and Gwynedd. There are rumours that it will change. Those rumours have been taken seriously and local health authorities and others are vying for influence in the areas of Aberconwy and Colwyn boroughs which may come into that new health authority area. My constituents would be pleased to know whether the boundary will change.
  My constituents' greatest concern about the proposed reform of local government is the point that I mentioned in response to a question from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers)—the disgraceful way in which the Opposition have been organising their surrogates in the county councils in an attempt to undermine the proposed reform of local government. It is an undemocratic modus operandi, but it is not unique. I accept that the Opposition may not agree with Government policy, but they seem to be trying to undermine that policy instead of trying to make the most of it and make it work. The Opposition have been in opposition for some 14 years and no longer seem able to distinguish between opposing the Government and opposing the country.
  Another example of the Opposition trying to undermine Government policy can be found in grant-maintained schools. Their attempts to prevent schools, governors and parents from exercising their democratic right to decide freely whether they wish to opt for grant-maintained status is quite disgraceful.
  Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Richards: In a moment.
  I urge my right hon. Friend to use all his powers and to take steps to prevent the Opposition from operating in that undemocratic way.
  Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman mentioned me specifically before he made his outrageous accusations. County councils have a right to make up their own minds. I do not know whether Conservative county councils are controlled from central office, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Labour county councils make their own decisions and not on instructions from Members of Parliament.
  The hon. Gentleman's other outrageous point related to people confounding Government policy on grant-maintained schools. The hon. Gentleman is well known for his wild accusations: will he give some credit to the House and give an example of Labour-controlled authorities, or other people, specifically doing what he has accused them of doing? Let us have a few names.
  Mr. Richards: There are several schools in my constituency where the Labour party has specifically attempted to undermine their attempts to become grant-maintained. Ysgol Emrys Ap Iwan is a particularly noteworthy example, where not only the county councillors but even council officials were campaigning against its becoming grant-maintained.
  My complaint against the Labour party is that, although the borough councils and the districts are trying to get themselves organised to accept the reorganisation of local
  228
  government, the counties are refusing to transfer the information that is required by those authorities to prepare themselves for that event. The Labour party is also ignoring the future careers of many senior officials within those councils, who may well wish to be employed by the new unitary authorities. Obviously the Labour party has no regard for those people.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: If, as we expect, an announcement will be made later today that the elections to the shadow unitary authorities are to be delayed for one year, does the hon. Gentleman agree that that will cause great damage to and uncertainty among local government employees in Wales? Does he share the view that, first, we should be told now what announcement will be made so that we can debate the matter and, secondly, that the elections should take place according to the original timetable?
  Mr. Richards: The hon. and learned Gentleman is speculating, and if he wants me to speculate upon his speculation, he is taking matters too far. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make a statement in a few hours and I doubt very much whether it will add to the uncertainty that the Labour party has already created.
  Why has the Labour party created such uncertainty? It is not as though the Opposition are against the principle of unitary authorities—they are not. They have embarked upon this particular campaign for one reason alone—they want an elected assembly for Wales. All of a sudden, the Opposition have changed their mind. They have been converted by the colleagues of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and have now adopted the nationalist agenda. They have taken up that agenda not because they believe in an assembly for Wales, but because they are afraid of the nationalists at the polls. That is the one and only reason for the adoption of that agenda.
  Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman is indulging in a flight of fantasy. I had a majority of more than 30,000 over my nationalist opponent, so one can hardly say that the Opposition are running scared.
  Mr. Richards: The one thing that the Welsh people will want to learn from the fourth re-run of the debate on this issue is the difference between the Conservatives and the Opposition parties. Every one of those parties wants an assembly for Wales, but the Conservative party does not. We are the party that believes in the United Kingdom, but all the Opposition parties, including the Liberal Democrats, want to break up the United Kingdom. Amazingly, they want to break it up into small pieces which they would then insert into a united states of Europe.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it right for an hon. Member to mislead the House, apparently deliberately? The Liberal Democrats are in favour of retaining a strong United Kingdom.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.
  Mr. Richards: I understand that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) will reply on behalf of the Opposition. Anyone who was present when he last wound up a debate will remember that occasion for ever.
  My hon. Friends and I have heard the hon. Gentleman speak on several occasions and he always refers to what he describes as the underspending on various services in Wales. He always says that more money should be spent on

  229
  roads, schools and hospitals. Bearing in mind the fact that the Labour party wants an assembly for Wales which will have tax-raising powers, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can aggregate what he believes that underspend to be and tell us how his assembly in Cardiff would set about raising the funds to cover that deficit. Would it be made up through direct taxation, indirect taxation or corporate taxation? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has plans to raise taxation through all those means.
  If the hon. Gentleman finds it a little difficult to provide that aggregate, he can merely look at the existing budget of the Welsh Office. Given that he disagrees with the way in which that money is spent, perhaps he will tell us how he would redistribute the budget.
  It is a great pity that the sole representative of Plaid Cymru, the hon. Member for Caernarfon, seems to have left the Chamber. For the nationalists, an assembly in Cardiff is the first stage in their campaign for an independent Wales. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to reveal at his recent party conference that his party wants not only an independent Wales, but an independent republic. He appears to have gone so far as to work out the details of the ceremony for the inauguration of the president. If I am correct, I understand that he has it in mind that the archdruid of the National Eisteddfod should inaugurate the president. I can only assume that the arch-druid would be wearing his Sunday best bed linen.
  Should the hon. Member for Caernarfon ever succeed in creating an independent republic, he should think carefully about how he would attract inward investment. Given what the hon. Gentleman said at his party conference, anyone with a connection with Surrey or anywhere else in England would not be happy to invest in a republic over which he had any influence, because he seems to object to their drinking habits.
  The counter-proposals of the Opposition parties to the reorganisation of local government in Wales are totally unacceptable to the Conservative party and totally unwanted by the people of Wales, as they showed in the 1979 referendum on the issue when they voted 4:1 against them.
  4.48 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: One of the consequences of a linked Scottish and Welsh debate is that those of us who usually contribute to Scottish debates have an opportunity to hear our Welsh counterparts, and vice versa. While the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) was speaking, I could not help reflecting on the contrast between him and his distinguished predecessor, who, in 1989, had the political courage and integrity to stand up and fight Lady Thatcher. I understand the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West to be calling on the Secretary of State to stop Labour county councils having the audacity to campaign against Conservative party policies. Such is the fate of pluralist democracy under the Government.
  Although the Gracious Speech attributes only 12 words specifically to Scotland and Wales, it is useful to have today's debate. We shall no doubt be told that other measures in the Queen's Speech will affect Scotland and
  230
  Wales. That worries us and many students, who see the basic services enjoyed by university students threatened by the proposals that will affect the future of student unions.
  I am also worried that the Government may try to insert, in a criminal justice Bill substantially designed for England and Wales, measures that will affect Scottish law and that, because of the nature of Committees, many Scottish Members will be unable to examine the proposals in detail. If that happens, it will be a big step away from even the limited advances which the Secretary of State announced in his "taking stock" proposals.
  I suppose that teams from Scotland and Wales, like the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, will attend the Commonwealth games in Canada, and we wish them well.
  In introducing the debate, the Secretary of State for Scotland announced some modest but nevertheless welcome changes to some of the boundaries.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Not enough.
  Mr. Wallace: As my hon. Friend says, those changes are not enough. We are in a different position today from when the Secretary of State made his original announcement on the boundaries. Before that, we had had only four maps with general illustrations on them. Only since 8 July this year have the people in the Scottish communities had an opportunity to consider specific proposals. It is clear from what my hon. Friends the Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, that the proposals to lump Berwickshire with East Lothian, put Westhill with Aberdeen and have Fife as a single unit and not allow diverse local authorities within Fife are all strongly opposed in those localities.
  The Secretary of State has a duty to tell the House what criteria he will apply in changing the proposals that he is presently stuck with. Will the views of the communities to be affected by the proposals have a bearing on the Government's decisions when the matter comes before Parliament?
  In a radio interview that I did with the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) last week, the hon. Member said that the Secretary of State had told him that Parliament would decide. I hope that that means that the Whips will be off when we debate detailed boundary proposals, and that the views of the people will count for a lot.
  Ultimately, the important question when deciding whether to support local authority reform is not whether we should have one or two tiers; nor is it about the details of boundaries. Rather, we should examine the legislation to see whether it will lead to greater self-determination for local communities, how communities and individuals can exercise effective control over their localities, and whether the local authorities will be genuinely democratic, providing voters with genuine choice and an opportunity for local determination.
  If we pretend that what we have today is an example of local democracy, we shall deceive ourselves. As the Secretary of State said when he addressed the House on that issue on 14 July 1993:
  "In the regional elections in 1990, the votes cast and seats gained revealed that it took 3,133 votes to elect a Labour councillor, 6,419 to elect a Conservative and even more to elect a Scottish Nationalist."—[Official, Report, 14 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 1001.]

  231
  He stalled on showing what electoral injustice did for the Liberal Democrats.
  That perfectly legitimate point is answered not by gerrymandering boundaries but by a fair and democratic electoral system. Under the present system, even the party that gains the most votes in a local authority will not necessarily form the administration. At the latest district council elections in Edinburgh, 29 per cent. of the vote was won by the Labour party, for which it was rewarded with 30 seats, but 40 per cent. of the vote was won by the Conservative party, which was rewarded with only 23 seats. That is a fundamental injustice and if we are to have local democracy, we must change our voting system.
  At best, the proposed changes will lead to a different system, but the outcome is more likely to be a worse situation with more power in the hands of unelected quangos and central Government.
  The comments of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) on the situation in Greater Glasgow health board in recent weeks were extremely pertinent. I noticed that the Secretary of State nodded in agreement when the hon. Member for Hamilton quoted the Secretary of State for Wales about the need for considerable scrupulousness in how those public authorities conduct their business.
  Mr. Redwoodindicated assent.
  Mr. Wallace: I think that the whole House would agree on that. If the Secretary of State for Scotland agrees, he is duty bound at some stage—preferably today—to give detailed answers to the pertinent questions put by the hon. Member for Hamilton.
  The Government have increased quangos in Scotland year in and year out. In 1988, they were spending £500 million of public money and are now responsible for £1.6 billion of public money. The trouble is that they shield Ministers from direct accountability to the clients of those services. They must remain accountable to the House, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will say clearly that he plans to answer the pertinent questions of the hon. Member for Hamilton.
  What is coming down the track but the creation of more quangos in the form of three water authorities proposed for Scotland? The Secretary of State did not refer to water in his speech. It is understood that water proposals would be included in a local government Bill and it is important to recognise that such proposals command no widespread support in Scotland. In the opinion poll referred to earlier in the debate, 95 per cent. of respondents said that they wanted water and sewerage services left in the hands of elected local authorities; only 4 per cent. said that they wanted the three larger water authorities; 85 per cent. believed that privatisation would ultimately result if the Government's proposals were adopted; and 82 per cent. wanted a referendum on the issue.
  That raises important questions about democracy: first, about adhering to the overwhelmingly expressed views of the people; and, secondly, about the lack of democracy that will result if powers currently exercised by democratically—albeit not as democratic as most of us would wish—directly elected councillors are handed over to appointed quangos. Those three water boards would be made up of appointees and would have no democratic legitimacy.
  Will the Secretary of State agree, even if he intends to set up unelected bodies, that there is a considerable case for allowing the three islands authorities to continue to have
  232
  their water and sewerage services determined locally? I cannot believe that anyone sitting in Dundee—or wherever he chooses as the headquarters of the board that will represent the north of Scotland—will have the slightest interest in the details of the water supply needed on the islands of Rousay, Papa Westray or Whalsey. I fear that all that we have in common is the water that divides us—either the Pentland firth or the North sea.
  I hope that common sense will intervene at that stage and that the islands areas, at least, will not be lumped in with the mega-authorities. The main principle is that water and sewerage services should remain in the hands of directly elected councillors who will be answerable to the people for whom those services are provided.
  We want local authorities that are free from outside interference to decide for themselves how to discharge functions. If the Government are trying to say that they want strong local government, those who are elected must have an opportunity to decide. On a simple matter like refuse collection, a local authority can decide whether the refuse will be collected by its work force or whether it will engage contractors. Alternatively, it may wish to devolve some of the responsibility to community councils or have a combination of all threee.
  If local authorities are told that it is compulsory to put out refuse collection to competitive tendering, the reason for having local democracy almost evaporates. How can people judge whether councillors are doing a good job if those councillors cannot decide such a fundamental question as who will collect rubbish? If we let the local authority decide such questions, at an election the people will decide whether that authority has done a good job. That is what democracy is all about.
  When the Secretary of State suggests that the great problem with the two-tier system has been the confusion between region and district, he does not recognise that the biggest confusion in local government is where local authority responsibility and power end and central Government responsibility begins. Often, the opportunity for local authorities to take decisions that they want to lake in the interests of their local communities is frustrated by the big hand of central Government.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) misreads what the Scottish Constitutional Convention and those of us who support a Scottish Parliament want. My party wants to take power from Westminster and to give it to national Parliaments in Scotland and in Wales. We want to go beyond that by increasing the power that is given to local authorities.
  Given that, in the past 14 years, the Conservative party has introduced 160 measures taking power away from local authorities and concentrating them in Westminster or St. Andrew's house, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South probably cannot understand that some people believe that power should reside in the communities in which they live. Given his background of Toryism, it is likely that he would not understand such a democratic concept.
  We want local government to have a power of general competence. Restrictions on it should be applied by voters through a fair electoral system at the ballot box. A majority of voters should install councillors who will work to provide decent quality services and who will not protect cosy municipal practices, but will try to achieve the best delivery of services for those whom they represent. They

  233
  will be judged at the ballot box by those whom they represent. One looks in vain for such a policy from a party that does not have a great commitment to democracy.
  Today, The Independent reports a briefing from a senior Minister at the Department of the Environment suggesting that English county councils will be the next to get the boot. It suggests that that will not cause the Government any political difficulty because, with the exception of Buckinghamshire, the Conservatives lost control of every county council at the latest county council elections. As we saw with the Greater London council, when the Government cannot win power through the ballot box, they change the rules and gerrymander or legislate a democratic body out of existence.
  One would almost believe that, if they were faced with certain defeat at a general election, the Government would introduce a Bill to extend the lifetime of a Parliament. They would do so in the name of efficiency, using the argument that money would be saved by avoiding a general election. The Conservative party has no real commitment to democracy. Against that background, one cannot believe that any Bll introduced to reform local government in Scotland will do anything to improve the quality of our local democracy.
  5.13 pm
  Mr. Phil Gallie: I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for not being here at the start of the debate. Perhaps, if the Strathclyde region had ensured that we had a reasonable link between the A77 and the M8, I would have made my plane on time. Once again, we are provided with a good reason for bringing about a change in Scottish local government to ensure that the interests of my constituents in Ayrshire will be looked after.
  I welcome this debate and the fact that so much time has been made available to discuss Scottish and Welsh interests. There was much talk about the local government proposals having been brought forward without proper consultation, but we have had two major consultations on the matter, one before and one after the last election. It is time to act and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has faced up to the task. Instead of talking and talking, as the Opposition would want us to do, he has acted in a firm, decisive and, in the main, sensible manner.
  When we enter the debate, discussions will be localised, which is as it should be. Of course, Scottish interests as a whole will be of interest to every hon. Member who represents a Scottish constituency, but ultimately each one will be looking at his or her own constituency requirements. That is how it should be, and I offer no apologies for taking that approach myself.
  At the last election all the parties promised single-tier local government. It was a Tory party manifesto pledge, and I am delighted that we are now presenting it. It was also a Labour party pledge—the party policy document stated:
  "All-purpose councils facilitate the move to an integrated approach to service provision and also decentralisation through a local one-door approach."
  That statement appeared in a Labour party document before the last election and, for a change, it contained an
  234
  element of sense. The one-door approach is wise. It is a pity that the Labour party seems to have thrown it out of the door now, but that does not surprise me.
  What did the Liberal party have to say in its 1992 Scottish manifesto? It said:
  "We will introduce a single-tier of local government, to deliver most of the services currently provided by districts and regions."
  We should notice the word "most"—the Liberals thought that a Scottish assembly would have pulled in many of the services. Those were the words of the Liberal party manifesto, not mine. That manifesto continued:
  "This will end the confusion about who is accountable for what and bring local government effectively within the reach of the local citizens."
  That is right—but what happened to those principles? They seem to have been abandoned.
  The Scottish nationalists not only supported the idea of single-tier authorities at the last election, but have done so since. "The Scotsman of 1 October stated:
  "The SNP believe that the single-tier structure will be the most effective"
  form of local government. I totally go along with the SNP's vision.
  When we consider local government reform and the fulfilment of Tory manifesto pledges—a mark of Tory government since 1979—we see that those issues cannot be put behind us. I was shocked the other day to hear the Leader of the Opposition suggest that English Members of Parliament had no part to play in the current debate. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is supposedly the leader of the United Kingdom Labour party, speaking for all parts of the United Kingdom. However, he suggested that English Members of Parliament should play no part in the debate on the procedures. Hansard of last Thursday gives the facts at column 24. I suggest that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) reads it.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: As we were reminded earlier, under Standing Order No. 86—under the present rules of the House—the legislation would be handled by a Committee of Scottish Members in Scotland and of Welsh Members in Wales. That will happen unless the Government decide to set aside a Standing Order that has been in existence since before the first world war.
  Mr. Gallie: My understanding is that, within the House, hon. Members represent United Kingdom constituencies. As such, Members of all parties and from all parts of the United Kingdom enter the debate and sit on Committees on United Kingdom affairs. I see no cause for concern about the legislation, and I welcome advice on the issue from all parts of the United Kingdom.
  Why has the Labour party changed its views on the issue? There is one specific reason: the voice of COSLA, which is represented heavily by Labour Members from central Scotland. The Labour party founded its strong political base on COSLA and on that central Scottish representation. I should like to think that when we debate the subject in Committee—it will be a long and hard debate on 160 clauses, with many hours of debate—Labour Members will throw aside the vested interests of COSLA and look after their constituents' interests. I offer 100 per cent. commitment to my constituents' interests.
  The Labour party in Ayrshire is in the mire. Across Ayrshire, there is great relief that Strathclyde will soon be abolished. The Scottish Labour party will struggle to

  235
  maintain Strathclyde and try to hold on to its regions, but Labour Members in Ayrshire have shown signs of dissent. We have a new boy in the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), who may obey his party's instructions, but the hon. Members for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), for whom I have the greatest respect, may follow their instincts and the interests of their constituents.
  Mr. Donohoe: Why, therefore, is the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) running scared from a debate on the reorganisation of local government on Friday evening?
  Mr. Gallie: The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South is well aware that notification of the debate was given only a week ago. I have a full diary. I have already had debates in the constituencies of the hon. Members for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and in my constituency. I have no need to run scared of anyone. If the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South wants me to debate the subject in his constituency, I shall arrange a mutually convenient time to do so.
  Mr. Foulkes: Perhaps I could offer another reason why the hon. Gentleman is unable to attend, apart from his full diary. He has attended two meetings. Out of a large attendance in his constituency of Ayr he was able to get only four supporters from the floor, and he had to leave before the end of the meeting in Cumnock, but I can tell him that we had a vote and no one supported him. He seems to be moving in the right direction. If he went to Cunninghame, presumably some who supported him at the beginning would end up not supporting him at the end.
  Mr. Gallie: As the hon. Gentleman and I are well aware, the large attendance in Ayr was of probably about 60 or 70 politically aligned people, and the same applies to Kilmarnock and Loudoun. Both debates were pretty partial. The debate organised by the community council in Kilmarnock and Loudoun was constructive and worth while. I regretted having to leave the debate in Cumnock early. I do not know whether the people who attended were politically aligned, but, in general, for the most strange reasons, they seem to support the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley time and again at general elections. I do not know what the outcome of the debate was, but it was useful and I enjoyed attending. His constituents gave me a fair hearing.
  I remind the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley that I sat on a platform with about eight other speakers and was well aware that each of them would speak against the views that I had expressed. It does not surprise me if, having gone first, my voice did not prevail.
  Labour Members from Ayrshire are not in tune with their district councillors. Labour-controlled Cunninghame district council wants to go it alone, as do councillors in Kyle and Carrick. I do not argue with them. That is a matter for the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) to pursue. I do not know his view, but I am told that he pledged to people in Cunninghame, North that he would support his councillors in achieving their aim. I shall wait to see whether he does so, because, if he did, it would cut across his party's policy, and on that basis he would probably have to give up his position as deputy shadow transport spokesman.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gallie: I will shortly.
  Mr. Foulkes: I shall be very brief.
  Mr. Gallie: No, we have heard enough from you—sorry, not from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but from the hon. Gentleman.
  Councillors in Kilmarnock and Loudoun are suggesting that they should have a single all-purpose authority. There is something ghastly awry in the Labour party in Ayrshire, and rather than having a go at me, occasionally Labour Members would do better to get together and sort out the problems of the Labour party.
  Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the Labour party in Ayrshire did get together at a meeting in Kilmarnock with representatives from all constituencies and we unanimously supported an all-Ayrshire authority. He should be aware, and I hope that he will admit it, that every Labour councillor in Kyle and Carrick and every councillor in Cumnock and Doon Valley supports an all-Ayshire authority. I hope that the hon. Member will admit that.
  Mr. Gallie: I do not disagree with anything that the hon. Member says, but Labour-controlled Cunninghame district council and Kilmarnock and Loudoun council have said that they want their own authority. The hon. Gentleman has emphasised my point: the Labour party in Ayrshire is in a mess, and if it has achieved unity, but the local authorities disagree, that merely supports my point.
  What would a new all-Ayrshire authority mean to my constituents in Kyle and Carrick? It would mean a loss of say. Under a set-up between Irvine, Kilmarnock and Cumnock, our people in south Ayr would have little voice and that must be borne in mind.
  We are told that we have a Tory fiefdom. What a lot of nonsense. In Kyle and Carrick —the future south Ayrshire, south-west Ayrshire, or even Kyle and Carrick; perhaps that is a small change that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might consider—the local authority is accountable to its people. At each election, its complexion has changed, which is good for local democracy and is what local government is all about. If the council delivers and it offers good services at the right cost, it will be re-elected. If it does not, it is the right of the elector to change the complexion of the council. That will continue to happen in south Ayrshire, and that is a very sound basis for looking forward.
  Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gallie: Despite the fact that the hon. Gentleman showed me no courtesy when he was speaking, I will, of course, give way to him.
  Mr. Wallace: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I had just begun my speech when he tried to intervene.
  What does the hon. Gentleman have to say to his Conservative party colleagues on the council in the city of Edinburgh? Did not 40 per cent. of the voters turn out to vote for the Conservative party, and yet it got fewer seats than the Labour party and is now in opposition?
  Mr. Gallie: I would tell them to keep trying and accept the rules as they stand. They will prevail and, in due course, the electorate will see the light.
  Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend was kind enough to give way to the Liberal Democrat spokesman on local government, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).
  Does my hon. Friend recall the recent Tower Hamlets by-election when a leaflet that was produced by the Liberal Democrats was criticised as racist? The Liberal Democrat party said at that time that it was conducting an inquiry into that leaflet. Will my hon. Friend ask the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland when the outcome of that inquiry will be known?
  Mr. Gallie: I must tell my hon. Friend for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) that we are talking about local government in Scotland and Wales. However, since I have emphasised that I am a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament, I should be happy to give way to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland if he wishes to respond.
  Mr. Wallace rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest that hon. Members stick to the debate on Scotland and Wales.
  Mr. Gallie: I feel that you have saved the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland some embarrassment, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  What is currently on offer from the Labour party on the local government review? There is no doubt that it will say that it wants a commission. The subject of a commission will come up during the parliamentary debate, no doubt on the Second Reading of the local government Bill, and will be pushed at that time. What would the commission be? It would be nothing more than a talking shop which would put a time barrier on a change for which many people across Scotland cannot wait.
  It is in line for Opposition Members to seek delay constantly. They are people who, I would suggest, would never do today what can be put off until tomorrow. Their policies are those of the indecisive, of those who shirk responsibility, and of those who would welcome several layers of government to mask their responsibility.
  Opposition Members want a Scottish assembly for just such a purpose. A Scottish assembly would achieve another level of restriction that would be placed on the citizens of Scotland. Another layer of politicians would be added to the requirements of Scottish business, Scottish interests and Scottish development. We certainly do not want an assembly. There has been much talk of the powers that such an assembly would either suck in or have redistributed. We have heard very little from Opposition Members on the cost of such an assembly. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and the hon. Member for Fife, Central should take that on board when they are talking about changes in the constitutional arrangements in Scotland.
  In finalising—[Interruption.] Maybe I will not finish, given the obvious popularity of my words. I will expand on what the Opposition want to do. I mentioned the loss of democracy in Ayrshire, and the loss of input for my constituents if there were to be an all-Ayrshire authority. I did not mentioned the cost, and what it would it mean for my constituents. I said that we would lose our say, and such an authority would mean my constituents would have excessive amounts to pay.
  When I look at the make-up of Ayrshire, I find that, in Cumnock and Doon Valley. 82 per cent. of domestic
  238
  residences are in the A and B bands of the council tax. In Kilmarnock and Loudon, the figure is 71 per cent. and in Cunninghame it is 68 per cent. In my constituency, 80 per cent. of residences are in the higher bands of the council tax. Believe me, that my constituents are no better off than others in Ayrshire. The facts are that their properties have higher values and their levels of income do not represent that.
  Those who are currently worst off, and in particular those pensioners who are just above the levels of social security support, would be the people who would suffer from an all-Ayrshire authority through extra council tax demands. That is one great reason why there is no way that we will go down the path of an all-Ayrshire authority if I have anything to do with it.
  Looking at the Gracious Speech overall, there are one or two other issues of importance to Scotland to which I should like to draw to the attention of hon. Members. One is the commitment of the Government to continue to upgrade overseas aid. I applaud that. Considerable progress has been made over the years but, at times, that acts against us. In my constituency, British Aerospace has had to shed jobs because of the misdirection of overseas aid in Brazil. I should like my hon. Friends and right hon. Friends to take that on board and pass it on to the relevant Ministers.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman addressed his remarks to Scotland and Wales, and not to Brazil.
  Mr. Gallie: I made that point with particular reference to the interests of Scotland and the impact of overseas aid on Scottish jobs. I apologise, and I will now make my second point.
  There are references within the Gracious Speech to law and order issues. I trust that those references are spread on a United Kingdom basis, because there is interest in Scotland in changes in law and order and in criminal justice.
  The Government are intent under the local government review to make changes to the children's hearing panel system and to the reporter service. I hope that the review will give some teeth to the children's panels to deal with many of the young hoodlums who come before them. I pay tribute to those who sit on the children's panels. They are dedicated to their task and they are interested in the future of Scottish children, but they are also interested in the protection of the public. I hope that that issue will be kept to the fore in the changes that are to be made to the reporter service.
  5.38 pm
  Ms Rachel Squire: The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) started his speech by accusing Opposition Members of "talking, talking, talking". The hon. Gentleman has just given an absolutely marvellous example of an hon. Member who has the ability to talk but—as was clear from the rest of his speech—does not have the ability to listen to the people of Ayrshire or to the people of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman's clear interest in the Labour party in Ayrshire leads me to conclude that he is thinking that the only way that he can keep his seat at the next general election is to join the Labour party.
  The Government have claimed in the White Paper that they want to make councils more accessible, more

  239
  accountable, and more reflective of local loyalties. The Government clearly do not listen to what the people of Scotland want. My view, and certainly the view of my constituents in Dunfermline and west Fife, is that the Government's proposals are not in the interests of Scottish people. The Government's proposals are about centralisation of power at the Scottish Office and here at Westminster. They are about the privatisation of public services and the creation of yet more quangos and well-paid jobs for the Tories' friends such as the former general manager of Greater Glasgow health board.
  I shall give a few examples of the Government's failure to listen. In the west end of my constituency is the community of Kincardine. For many years that community has been part of Fife. It is loyal to Fife. Yet the people of Kincardine have been told that they will be tacked on to the newly created council of Clackmannan and Falkirk. They protest loudly.
  Thinking that the Government might be prepared to listen to their voices, the people of Kincardine and their community council carried out a survey. They visited 1,016 households. They found that 93.12 per cent. of the people of Kincardine wished to remain in Fife. So will the Government listen to the people of Kincardine? Will they allow them to stay in an area which they feel is accessible and accountable, and to which its people are loyal?
  The second example of the Government's failure to listen is the proposals on the future of the management of the water service in Scotland. The vast majority of the Scottish people have said that they want the water service to remain solely within the control of democratically elected councils. They say that water is a basic need which should belong to all the people and not just to the ever fewer friends of the Conservative party in Scotland.
  If the Government are still unable to accept that that is what the people of Scotland want, are they prepared to hold a referendum on the water service? The Government might as well —it would be a cost-saving measure—include in that referendum questions not only about what people want for the future of the water service in Scotland but about whether they want a Scottish parliament and about the reorganisation of local government once we have a Scottish parliament.
  If the Government want strong and effective local government, they should wait and they should introduce legislation to create a Scottish parliament. If the Government want value for money, as they claim, they should ditch the White Paper because no one wants the changes proposed in it and no one needs them. The taxpayer certainly does not want to see yet another £200 million wasted on yet another whim of the Conservative Government.
  The people of Scotland clearly want elected councils which are directly accessible and accountable. They are largely satisfied with the present arrangement. They do not want further hiving off. They do not want an extension of the contract culture. They do not want further unnecessary compulsory competitive tendering. I suggest that the only people who should be put out to contract are the Ministers in the Scottish Office. We can safely predict that no one would want them.
  I am aware of other hon. Members' interest in the debate, so I shall conclude. I agree with the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) that proposals should be sensitive and accountable to local needs. If the Government are serious about that, they should take notice
  240
  of what the people and my constituents in Kincardine are saying. They should keep water in public control. They should promote value for money and competition by giving Scotland Scottish parliament and then allow Opposition Members to show how to improve public services, how to introduce accessibility and accountability, and how to govern a country in the interests of all rather than a few.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. James Hill: I realise that this is a debate on Scottish and Welsh local government, but everything that I shall speak about will be of interest and will apply to Scotland and Wales as much as it applies to English local government.
  The big issue of the day is the "back to basics" theme, which the Prime Minister is fully behind. The first measure will be the criminal justice Bill. It will strengthen the tight against crime and provide new powers to detect crime and convict the guilty. The second measure will be the education Bill, which will reform teacher training so that new teachers have more practical and relevant experience in how to get the basics right in the schools. There will also be a deregulation Bill, which will remove specific burdens and ensure continuing efforts to leave business, including Scottish and Welsh business, free of unnecessary and burdensome state interference.
  I suppose that we were all delighted a short time ago when, after the Police Federation had taken a perhaps difficult stance on the Sheehy report, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was wise enough to accept parts of it but to leave out the fixed-term appointments and the performance-related pay matrix. That was well thought out. It was right that he should take a cautious approach to a service for which the whole world respects us.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that many members of the Scottish police force still have some serious reservations about the parts of the Sheehy report that have been left in? It is not all milk and honey. Officers from constables to chief constable still have serious reservations about the proposals that have been left in.
  Mr. Hill: I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, in a recent paper the chairman of the Police Federation said:
  "The battle is not over".
  That is true. There must be further and further talks on all the problems that would prevent our police force from working efficiently. We cannot have a police force which is working at half power.
  The number of crimes is increasing for many reasons. For example, we have made it far easier for people to talk about child abuse and rape in the home. Brothers and sisters now want to protect each other and will report incidents to the police. The huge volume of crime that we hear about now may well have been submerged and hidden previously. Now it is coming out into the open. That is why crime statistics are particularly horrifying.
  I go to the extent of saying that we must all support the police in every way that we can. There is a moral factor here. A police superintendent in my constituency today begged members of the public to come forward as witnesses. There were plenty of people around when a police officer stopped a car and put his hand through the

  241
  window to remove the ignition key. The young thug put the window up and dragged the police officer along the ground for 25 to 30 yards, giving him some nasty injuries.
  Those are the sorts of thing that are happening now. They would have been unheard of 30 or 40 years ago as there would not have been such disrespect for the police. But now there is a moral factor, which comes through the education system, the homes and the behaviour of everyone, including hon. Members in the House. Unfortunately, young people feel the need to express their frustration.
  There have been two murders in my area, but not in my constituency. In one of them, a young girl was stabbed 27 times. A form of madness is creeping into our society and we must support the police in every way that we can. We cannot allow youngsters of 14 or 15 years of age to come before the courts and say that they cannot be touched. They know that, at the moment, we cannot touch them. We must give the juvenile offenders courts a new power to send persistent 12 and 14-year-old offenders to secure training centres. The maximum sentence for 15, 16 and 17-year-olds should be doubled to two years in a young offenders' institution.
  In the worst cases in my area, youngsters who commit 20 or 30 burglaries confess, go before magistrates, get bail and then commit another 20 or 30 burglaries. We must crack down on what are called bail bandits. The new criminal justice Bill, although it will be subject to much debate, provides that youngsters will not get bail if it can be proved that they are persistent bail offenders.
  The right to remain silent, too, is an important part of the criminal justice Bill. That matter will be seriously debated, but it will be possible for the court to draw inferences from the silence of a defendant's refusal to answer questions.
  We must use more DNA sampling. There is an idea that it should not be allowed, but really it is structural fingerprinting, and we have relied on fingerprinting for many years. It is a new and possible way for the police to obtain non-intimate samples—such clauses are always included—from all suspects arrested in connection with recordable offences.
  There is now a new procedure on squatters which has caused much annoyance. I quote the example of people coming home from holiday and finding that they have squatters in their home.
  The question of the disruption of country sport will be fiercely debated, as indeed it should be. We must not waste too much time on that. That measure should go through fairly easily.
  However, child pornography must be deeply debated, because there is far too much of it. We had an exhibition in the Houses of Parliament at which the Metropolitan police brought conclusive evidence of what is going on with pornography. We are probably the only people who can deal adequately with that matter in legal terms.
  I shall now deal with the police and magistrates court Bill. I have a personal commitment tomorrow to go to the Lord Chancellor's Office, because it is dragging its heels on the new magistrates' building that was proposed for Southampton—another 12 courts. It is no good putting up six more prisons and having far more institutions to look
  242
  after young offenders; the courts must be adequately serviced and we need extra money to build the magistrates court.
  I hope that the Government will not go too far towards taking away from the chairman and magistrates of each area the control of the clerk of the magistrates. I do not think that that is the right way to proceed. It is a team effort and I have been visited by the chairman of the magistrates, the magistrates and the clerk of the magistrates in Southampton, who asked me to say a word against that. It is not a matter that will just go away. If the state gradually makes all the appointments, people working in the system will give up a lot of their moral fibre and think that it is no good proceeding.
  Mr. David Nicholson: Many of us have been lobbied about this measure, about which I have great reservations. The people lobbying us are not radical revolutionaries, or even complaining Liberals. They are often lifelong Conservatives who are unhappy about the powers being taken to the centre. In my area in particular, they are unhappy at the twinning of Somerset with Avon so that more of Somerset council tax payers' money will go into the black hole that is Bristol.
  Mr. Hill: That was a useful intervention.
  Another matter that will not be affecting Scotland—so often Scotland is ahead of the rest of us—is the Sunday Trading Bill, which will be very emotive. It is beginning to seem as though the middle course is the only course. Total deregulation is proposed and we are promised a free vote, for which I am grateful, but there will be a need for partial deregulation. Sunday trading has been a complete mess for many years and we should get it right. We are promised that that will happen before Christmas. There must be a precise administration system if we are to be able to get it before then.
  I chaired the Committee that considered the Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) promoted it. Without crossing any boundaries, I think that the same Bill should be applicable in England and Wales. Hunting knives are pretty fearsome. Any hon. Member who has travelled on the steamers across the channel to France will know that one can buy knives over there with which one can gut an ox. They are freely on sale, and so are guns, but I am talking about knives now, and we must have a uniform law on hunting knives and strong penalties for those who use them against other human beings.
  There is a continuing feeling outside the House—as we are told when we go back to our constituencies—that people in certain areas of a city are no longer free to move after dark. Elderly people lock themselves in. We do not seem to have any plan. To my knowledge, no local authority, bar Leeds, employs security police to keep an eye on the emotive corners of large council estates.
  There is no doubt that much of the crime on such estates is due to the fact that the youngsters are bored. They gather in gangs and make a nuisance of themselves. If they can find someone to persecute, they will. The future for all local authorities is to consider introducing security arrangements on their high-risk estates. Councils which do that will be highly regarded. Although this may be more applicable to my area than to Scotland, we need security patrols in my area as soon as is humanly possible.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I am sure that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) will forgive me if I do not follow his argument.
  One of the most disappointing things about the Gracious Speech is that the only reference to Scotland is the old news that we are to have a reorganisation of local government. The speech by the Secretary of State for Scotland was extremely disappointing because he did not give the reasons for the reorganisation. From the very beginning, the Secretary of State has not justified his proposed changes. He has cited no surveys, royal commissions or independent studies. He has simply referred to his own views.
  Before I consider local government reform in particular, I want to refer to the Gracious Speech in its general terms. The Prime Minister and others have told us that the theme of the Gracious Speech is "back to basics." That sounds like a computer program to me and we should not be surprised about that. The Government have no respect for the individual.
  For the Government, people are simply numbers to be manipulated to suit the Government's preconceptions and dogma. The Queen's Speech, and all that has been said about it, shows that the Government are still thirled to short-termism, to which I and others have drawn attention on previous occasions and to which even the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) managed to refer in his resignation speech.
  The Government's attitude is to always change the rules and concepts on which they are operating. If the unemployment figures are too high, they change the basis on which they are calculated in order to reduce them. If that does not work, the instruction goes out to take people off unemployment benefit and to put them on invalidity benefit. If the invalidity benefit bill rises to high, people are taken off that and put on income support. At all times, the issue is to avoid responsibility.
  We now understand from the press that the Government are concerned that the bill for unemployment benefit is too high. What is their solution to that? The solution is not to get people back to work. Instead, it appears to be to cut benefit back to six months. The Government are always looking for a quick fix. They are doing nothing to stimulate the economy.
  We are always told that we are being given new job opportunities and that unemployment is a chance for people to get new jobs. We are told that unfair dismissal is a barrier to job opportunity and to employment. What did the Government do? They reduced the qualification period during which people can raise actions for unfair dismissal.
  The Government claim that what they are trying to do in the Queen's Speech, and what they have tried to do throughout their period in office, is to provide people with freedom and choice. The trouble is that that freedom of choice is confined to those who can afford to choose. For example, employers have rights, but employees are denied choice at every level. The same applies in education.
  I have no objection to the publication of league tables of how schools are performing. People can then see what is happening. However, the Government fall down because they see publication of those tables as the end of the matter. They do not consider the schools that find it difficult to provide a good service to pupils. The Government do not
  244
  try to remedy the faults in our education system. The Government ignore all that. They simply publish the tables and hope for the best.
  We are now told that if local government is eventually reorganised, there will be no need for a statutory education committee or a director of education. We are told that that also applies to social work. There will be no statutory right for a social work committee or a director of social work.
  The Government talk continually about the need for family values. What about the people who are struggling to keep a family together? What about the unemployed who are desperate to obtain full-time work to give their families and children a decent start in life and decent services? They cannot do that, because they are compelled to try to eke out an existence on income support.
  The gap between rich and poor is increasing at a rate probably unknown since Victorian or pre-Victorian times. Are the Government worried about that? I do not believe that they are. I believe that the Government want to promote a society in which there is a greater gap between rich and poor. If the Government cannot respect the individual, how on earth do they expect the individual to respect society?
  The problem is that, by their actions, the Government debase and debauch the very values that trip so readily from the tongues of Ministers. We need to restore a society that cares for its people and which gives people real rights and responsibilities. Investment in people, in education and in social services is necessary if we are to have real rights and responsibilities in our communities.
  Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: Not at the moment.
  The Government do nothing to help the elderly and those whom they so often say that they wish to help—those people just above the income support level.
  The Government will make an appalling mistake by applying VAT to domestic fuel bills. We were told six months ago that there would be a scheme to protect the elderly and those on state benefits. We still have not heard the details of that scheme. We simply read in the press that we can discuss that scheme only once the public sector expenditure round is passed. In other words, pensioners and those in need are at the bottom of the queue and not at the top.
  I want to fire a warning across the Chamber. We hear in the House and elsewhere that, once a VAT rate of 7·5 per cent. or 15 per cent. is applied, there is nothing that we can do about it. I do not accept that. We are told that it cannot be changed because there is a concordat with the European Community—or the European Union, as we are now supposed to call it. I suppose that we will all have to learn the new names. I do not accept that we cannot change the rate of VAT.
  I understand that harmonisation of VAT is desirable and even necessary in an open-border economy in respect of tradeable commodities and consumer goods. However, VAT on domestic fuel bills is not a choice or a tradeable commodity. Fuel is a necessity. The Opposition Front Bench as well as the Government Front Bench should be carrying forward the argument in Europe. When Labour comes to power, it will not accept that we have no right to reduce or even abolish VAT on electricity bills. We must carry that fight at every opportunity in the European Community.

  245
  I want now to consider the reorganisation of local government. I make no secret of the fact that I have always been in favour of single-tier authorities. I was against the two-tier authority system when it was announced by the Wheatley commission. The big difference between now and then, and one of the reasons why the argument about local government has developed, is that at least the Wheatley commission was a royal commission. At least everyone agreed that there were far too many local authorities in Scotland.
  Everyone agreed that some of the small boroughs were totally incapable of sustaining the kind of services that we wanted. That, at least, was a common agreement in local government, Parliament and elsewhere. There was at least that consensus. However, the Government have proceeded not on the basis of trying to establish the facts or the record. They have simply dealt with the matter as an in-house exercise. That is what happened in Scotland.
  Although I support one-tier authorities, it is a mistake to denigrate the present system and simply to say that regional councils have done no good and have never played a positive role. I believe that they have played a positive role. For example, Grampian regional council—naturally, I speak about the area I know best—has much to commend it. It has an industrial strategy which, by and large, has worked. It is a mistake simply to say that what Grampian regional council has done to promote trade and industry in the area should be cast aside without examining what good it has done.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said in an intervention, the problem is that we are not actually going to get unitary authorities. We are not doing away with the two-tier local government system. We will have unitary authorities for some aspects of local government, but we will have quangos, which will be grafted on to the system, to deal with issues that cannot be accommodated properly within local government. Those quangos will have no real accountability. Experience has told us that joint boards do not work. They have been tried and they do not work.
  Many right hon. and hon. Members have become excitable about the new local authority boundaries during the debate. Great concern has been expressed about the way in which the boundaries have been drawn, such as the proposed single-tier authority for the Highland region. The Secretary of State began the entire exercise by saying that the objective of local government reorganisation was to bring government nearer to the people. If that has any validity at all, one single authority for the Highland region is total nonsense. Given the geography and the travel-to-work distances, there must be smaller authorities in the Highland region that are more closely related to the people. It is proposed that Westhill should be tagged on to the city of Aberdeen.
  The constituency of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce)—who, I understand, has other engagements—includes Westhill. The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside and I went to Westhill some weeks ago to receive a petition. The figures are clear: 97 per cent. of the adult population of Westhill do not want their district to be part of the city of Aberdeen. If, as the Secretary of State has assured us time after time, the reason for having different sized local authorities and different arrangements in
  246
  different parts of Scotland is to allow for individual and community choice holds good, there is no case whatever for Westhill coming under Aberdeen.
  Much has been made of the comments by the city of Aberdeen district council—the Secretary of State used them in his argument earlier—that it would be feasible to bring Westhill into the Aberdeen area; but the council went on to say that that would not be desirable. If the argument that many of the Westhill people work in Aberdeen, visit the city for leisure, for shopping, and so on is a good reason for putting Westhill inside the new boundary, it must also apply to Inverurie, Porlethen and Stonehaven, because the travel-to-work area includes all those people too. The people of Westhill do not want to be inside that boundary and nor should they.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), who at least had the courage to join us in accepting the petition, will not only listen to the people, but vote against taking Westhill into the city of Aberdeen.
  Mr. George Kynoch: If I may refer to large rural authorities and especially the Highlands, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the White Paper made it clear that within one year of the new large rural authorities being set up, he expected them to include firm plans for decentralisation and local delivery of services? Will not that overcome the problem, by creating large enough rural authorities to be able to achieve rationalisation and efficiency of service, while giving a decentralised local delivery of services?
  Mr. Hughes: Decentralisation at managerial level is not sufficient to counter the argument for democracy. I understand, although I am no expert, that in Strathclyde there is a great deal of devolvement of managerial responsibility and that does not stop people arguing about it or stop the Secretary of State abolishing it. There is nothing in any devolution at officer level that answers the point about democracy, because individual officers will say that they would like to help but that they cannot because the council, wherever it is based, will make that political, strategic or policy decision.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said earlier that the Labour party thought that commuter communities should be worth a city authority. Does not the hon. Member agree that that description describes Westhill exactly?
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening or, if he has, he has not understood. If there is a commuter-based argument for Westhill, that argument applies equally to Stonehaven, to Inverurie, to Porlethen, to Newtonhill and to a whole range of districts in that travel-to-work area. Why suddenly mark out Westhill and chuck it into Aberdeen? It does not stand alone on that respect.
  I am much more concerned about the powers of local government. It has been put to me that what the Government really want are "no-purpose unitary authorities". They want to strip its powers. Local government is desperately important because it represents a direct responsibility for delivering services such as housing, education, social work, and fire and police services. If councillors are to do their job properly, they

  247
  must have the finance. That is the key. There has never been a golden age. I was a member of Aberdeen town council for nine years between 1963 and 1971—
  Mr. David Hanson: My hon. Friend was not the chair of finance.
  Mr. Hughes: My mathematics is a little wrong. I was a member of the council from 1961 to 1970. There was never a golden age in which local government was totally free of any responsibility or care for how it spent money. There have always been financial constraints and the need for discipline. It always had to face an electorate and justify how much was being spent and how it raised money. Even under Labour Governments, councils had to hold back and accepted it. The huge difference now is that local government is desperately struggling to provide decent housing, education, and a good physical infrastructure.
  The Government deny local councils not just money but any respectability, by constantly highlighting high-spending Labour authorities as profligate. Those Labour councils face the highest level of deprivation and a legacy of past mismanagement of the economy. They have to spend more than rural authorities where deprivation exists but is nowhere near as great.
  The Secretary of State says that single-tier authorities will be significantly more efficient. Where will those savings come from? Will the population of schoolchildren suddenly be halved after Third Reading? Children will still be there and will still need education, teachers, and schools. Will the number of people that need housing disappear after Third Reading? People will still need services, but, instead of being delivered by regional authorities, those services will have to be provided by the new authorities. How on earth can there be sudden efficiency savings?
  I hesitate to use the word devolution—it gets me into all sorts of trouble—but we need to devolve real power to local authorities if they are to make progress in dealing with social deprivation. That real devolved power must go to the local authorities.
  I believe strongly in local government and will seek to defend it as best I can. The restructuring proposals are not based on any demand for restructuring or on flaws in local government. I believe that the flaws could have been rectified in other ways—irrespective of whether I believe in a single-tier or in a two-tier system. I make no bones about the fact that I am happy that we are to return to a single-tier authority in Aberdeen. I am sorry for those who live outside Aberdeen, because I do not think that they will get such a good deal out of the proposals—but that is neither here nor there. It is only 20 years since Wheatley and 16 years since the local government reform.
  Constant reorganisation is no good for local services, and they are what counts. I understand the fears of those who work in local government, but local government does not exist simply to provide people with work. It is necessary that local government does that, but that is not the reason for having local government in the first place: it is not a job creation exercise. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The trouble with Conservative Members is that they think that the idea of reorganising local government is to sack people who have given years of service to the local community. That is their reason.
  Opposition Members believe—and we say it quite plainly—that the job of local government is to provide the
  248
  best services. That is what local government is about. If the system is constantly chopping and changing, not only is it more expensive—and that is a shame because it is a waste of money—but my constituents and those of the hon. Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) and for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) suffer.
  I do not want to be diverted, because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak, but I am beginning to sbecome concerned about the possibility that services that need to be delivered in my constituency and in the part of Aberdeen represented by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South will be held back. How can regional authorities plan ahead and commit new authorities to expenditure when they do not know what is going to happen? It would be very sad indeed if services suffered in that way.
  The Government did not opt for an independent report which would have enabled us to see where we stood. On the issue of local government and in every other respect the Government have failed the nation and its people. They are here to serve one purpose and one purpose only. They are time-serving their period of office. They have no clear direction and no principle other than that of self-preservation. I believe that the next election will see them wiped out of office. I believe that they will deserve to go, and that we shall then get a Government who believe in people, who have respect for people and who will command people's respect.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. Roger Evans: This afternoon's debate is a somewhat peculiar conflation of the problems of local government reorganisation in Scotland and in Wales. There are parallels between the two countries, but the issues are to some extent different. There has been a considerable improvement in respect of Wales, in the sense that this debate is taking place on the Floor of the House, whereas when we last debated the subject, Welsh Members were left to discuss it in the Welsh Grand Committee while the Opposition chose to discuss Scottish local government reform on the Floor of the House. At least this afternoon's debate gives us an opportunity to put that right.
  My constituents wholeheartedly welcome and endorse the proposed new Monmouthshire council which will be a unitary and effective local authority of the best neo-traditional type.
  I use the word "neo-traditional" to draw attention to a very real problem in the whole approach to local government which has not been analysed this afternoon. There is a tradition of local government in our country and that tradition once reflected very well upon the communities that it represented. There was a tradition of civic pride, which we can still see in the architecture of many of our great town and city halls.
  There is another aspect, however. The Government's proposals—certainly in respect of Wales—are part and parcel of a wider Conservative vision, which involves undoing the gross errors of the 1960s and the early 1970s. I see that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) is in his place. I deeply respect the passion with which the hon. Gentleman addressed the House and told us of his conviction that Merthyr Tydfil is a county borough. The hon. Gentleman's remarks reflected a deep sense of history and a deeply conservative conviction—let me say for his benefit that I mean

  249
  conservative with a small "c"—that things should not be altered. When 1,000 years of British history were disturbed, and privileges granted over centuries to different urban communities by way of royal charters or incorporation as cities or county boroughs were taken away, we entered into an unhappy revolutionary phase that created the problems that we must now tackle.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: As a neo-traditionalist who wishes to undo the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the same standards should be applied to central Wales as to Monmouthshire and that the old county of Montgomery should be restored?
  Mr. Evans: I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman will argue his case passionately and persuasively.
  What was right in the 1960s was the tradition of city government and urban government. It was a strange situation, though, because, also in the 1960s, we had the model of the counties, which had not been an entirely happy one. We had two-tier local government and urban and rural districts—certainly in my constituency—did not have the financial resources to develop the modern services that were then thought desirable.
  The late Richard Crossman recorded in his diaries how, as Minister of Housing and Local Government, he was troubled with the problem of redrawing the boundaries of the county borough of Plymouth with the surrounding Devonshire countryside. He decided to upset 1,000 years of history and unhappily unleashed upon us the Redcliffe-Maud commission and further legislation under a Conservative Government in the early 1970s. The result was that the most bloated model of local government, which did not address the real problems, came into being.
  There are a number of serious problems with local government and they need addressing.
  Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman has reminded us of the history behind the proposals. The Redcliffe-Maud proposals were not implemented in Wales. We looked at them and produced a proposal, but the 1972 Act was not based on the Redcliffe-Maud proposals in any shape or form.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is right. In the interests of brevity, I did not go into the sordid details. My point is that, once one disturbs tradition, one opens an open-ended can of possibilities as each interest is examined and each argument developed. One is then immediately faced with a difficulty. If a consensus that has evolved over hundreds of years has been destroyed, how can my right hon. Friend be persuaded that in Merthyr Tydfil a simple easy consensus can be restored? That is the difficulty of revolution and the difficulty of the left. [Interruption.] I leave Opposition Members to argue their own causes.
  There are a number of serious problems with local government, on which the proposed legislation will have some impact. First, there is the problem of the quality of the administration of local services in many parts of the country. The impartial traditions of our civil service are highly desirable, but I do not believe that political impartiality has always been a mark of local government officers in areas where one party has been in power for very many years.
  250
  We have heard a great deal about the democratic deficit. I believe that what happens in relation to local education authorities is a democratic scandal. One side comes into power at a local government election and throws all the school governors of the opposite persuasion out. At the next election, the reverse happens and, in the interests of democracy, we are told, another set of school governors is turfed out and replaced in its turn by placemen of the party coming into office. That is a democratic scandal and an abuse of education. The modern reformed system that has been put in place is far better and the sooner "democratic" interference with excellence in education and decisions of parents and teachers is removed, the better.
  As for the proposal in relation to Wales, this was also typical of the slightly colourful and over-the-top introduction to the topic by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) last week. He made it very clear that there was no support for the proposals in Scotland or Wales. I leave Scotland to others, but for Wales there is no doubt that a considerable body of opinion believes that unitary authorities are correct. There is real difficulty when one tries to re-establish traditions after a period of left-induced uncertainty. To recreate what is acceptable generally is a difficult task.
  For example, it is not just that my part of rural Gwent is to be called Monmouthshire. Surely those who represent constituencies in the city of Cardiff have found it peculiar and unsatisfactory that that great city has merely been a district council since the present arrangements came into force. These days, likewise, it is not just Merthyr Tydfil. As for the county borough of Newport, which neighbours my constituency, it is very unsatisfactory that it should be a district council and not have the full powers of a proper county, borough or city council, or indeed now the new unitary authority.
  Mr. Rogers: The anomalies that the hon. Gentleman is describing so badly were created by a Conservative Government. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will at least have the grace to acknowledge that.
  Mr. Evans: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me say at the beginning of my speech that we are engaged upon a wide, far-reaching crusade to reverse the ideological errors of the 1960s committed by his party and indeed—
  Mr. Rogers: And in the 1970s.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman should listen and have a little patience. If he had listened on the previous occasion that I discussed this historical topic, he would have heard me say and he would have heard his neighbour, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, pick me up on the details of the history, that it was simply because of an accumulation of errors in the 1960s, which the early 1970s Conservative Government fell in with, quite wrongly—indeed, they contributed to the implementation of 1960s proposals—that this unhappy situation has come about. We have seen it in several respects. In contrast, the present four Conservative Governments have set about a systematic agenda of returning to traditional values and to the Conservative principles which have unified our country.
  If we implement the arrangements which my right hon. Friend has introduced and which I welcome, what will happen in those parts of Wales where county boundaries as

  251
  traditionally understood have no place in future arrangements? For example, will my right hon. Friend preserve the county boundary of Gwent for any purpose, for example for the purposes of the lord lieutenancy or the high shrievalty? [Interruption.] I hear mockery from the Opposition, but it would be much tidier to give Newport, for example, exactly the privileges that Cardiff historically enjoyed and to give Monmouthshire the traditional attributes of a shire county.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. David Hanson: I find myself in a strange position because, in the light of the Secretary of State's announcement, I ripped up the speech that I was going to make.
  On behalf of my constituents, I welcome in part the change of thought by the Secretary of State with regard to the boundaries relating to Flintshire and Denbighshire, which dramatically affect my constituency. As the Secretary of State for Wales acknowledges, strong representations have been made to his Department by me and by many local community councils—for example, Delyn borough council and others in my community—about the boundaries that were initially announced in the White Paper on 1 March. It would be very churlish of me not to acknowledge the movement that has taken place to include in Flintshire the communities of Llanasa, Trelawnyd and Gwaenysgor, Mostyn, Whitford, Caerwys, Gwernymynydd, Nannerch, Ysceifiog, Brynford, Halkyn, Cilcain, Gwernaffield and Nercwys in my constituency, as opposed to the former Denbighshire where they were placed by the original White Paper.
  The logic of those moves is obvious to all. I welcome the Secretary of State's change of thought on the grounds of service delivery, representations received, and the sense of community in those areas, together with social, economic and geographical grounds and the sense of identity that people feel. His move to include those areas in a greater Flintshire authority will be much welcomed in my constituency and in north-east Wales.
  The proposal when the Bill comes before the House will be based on consensus between the current Delyn borough council and the current Alyn and Deeside borough council: one Labour—Alyn and Deeside—and one not Labour—Delyn—agreeing that the best thing for our local community is the merger of those two councils. I am very pleased that, at least on that score, the Secretary of State has seen fit to accept the arguments that were put to him by many people in my community. I pay tribute to those people, the borough council, the community council and other constituents who have written letters and strongly put their case which has been favourably received.
  The arguments that I and others have advanced on behalf of Flintshire and Denbighshire and their respective borders are absolutely no different from the arguments that were put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) with regard to his community and by other colleagues with regard to their local communities.
  Although I welcome the statement by the Secretary of State for Wales and the changes that have been announced, I am still slightly suspicious about why my community has been singled out when others which have equally good cases have not been singled out.
  Mr. Redwood: There is a very simple answer. Cases are different because the changes in Flintshire do not add to the number of unitary authorities, whereas the changes proposed for Merthyr would.
  Mr. Hanson: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney will note the Secretary of State's point and comment on it at an appropriate opportunity.
  Mr. Rowlands rose—
  Mr. Hanson: Now seems to be the opportunity.
  Mr. Rowlands: The Secretary of State's intervention is rather serious. Earlier, he was at least at pains to persuade me and others that, in our future discussions, he will have an open mind on the matter. It seems that he has almost closed his mind to the idea and that there will be 21 authorities and 21 only. I trust that his intervention did not mean that.
  Mr. Hanson: I note what my hon. Friend says. I would not wish my speech to be hijacked by the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. Perhaps those points will be raised elsewhere. I impress upon the Secretary of State that the arguments of Flintshire and Denbighshire, which have been welcomed by me and accepted by the right hon. Gentleman, are no different from those for community activity by many of my hon. Friends.
  I gravely regret that the Bill is to be introduced in another place. Full and frank discussion in this place should be paramount for changes in local government. Now is an appropriate opportunity for the Secretary of State to indicate the timetabling of the Bill. We await the right hon. Gentleman's speech at 9.30 pm, but many of my hon. Friends wish to know about the time scale before that time.
  Despite my welcome of the boundary issue relating to my constituency and to the new appropriate authority of Flintshire, the Bill and the discussion that will take place in the next few weeks remain fundamentally flawed. Despite the boundary success, which I very much welcome, the main questions that remain will be addressed in Committee and in the House as the Bill proceeds. The indications in the Gracious Speech are not helpful.
  The cost of implementing the changes is enormous. We currently have more than £200 million to implement the changes and additional annual expenditure, falling on whom I am yet to find out, with regard to the running costs of the local authorities. The accountability of the new local authorities, boundaries or not, needs to be considered in the light of the Gracious Speech and in Committee. I do not wish elected local councillors to have powers removed from them and transferred to a growing army of quangos and trusts. Nor do I wish the number of councillors to be dramatically reduced so that officers have a greater say in the running of local authorities, as opposed to those who are accountable for services.
  I have great reservations about the services that will be provided. The White Paper, and presumably the Bill that will follow, will mean further privatisation, a further reduction of services, a further erosion of what local government is about, a further erosion of funding and a reduction in the level of public services provided locally by people who are accountable to local communities.

  253
  I often say this in my constituency and I will say it again today: local government is good value for money. My council tax bill, which I received this week, came in at £550. For that, I get schools, fire, police, refuse, parks and a whole gamut of services. It is good value for money. The council is accountable to me and my local community. I am afraid that—boundaries apart—the Bill will diminish local government, reduce the level of services and reduce the accountability of the people whom I represent and those who deliver services locally.
  A major gap in the Bill and in the Gracious Speech is the question of a Welsh assembly. Earlier, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) raged against a Welsh assembly. I suggest that the case for a Welsh assembly has been made not by me or my hon. Friends, or hon. Members from other parties, but by the Secretary of State. Following a question from me, the Secretary of State recently produced a document entitled "Public Bodies: Appointments made by the Secretary of State for Wales", which is available in the Library of the House. That document is a list of the public appointments made by the Secretary of State and his Department to run services on behalf of the Government. Those appointments, if nothing else, show the need for a Welsh assembly to bring those appointed to democratic accountability.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that when the Labour party was in office, there were 100 bodies in Wales and the then Labour Secretary of State for Wales similarly made appointments to such bodies? At that time, the question whether there should be a Welsh assembly was put to the electorate of Wales and 80 per cent. said no.
  Mr. Hanson: Time has moved on since 1979. The Conservative Government who came to power in 1979 with the commitment to reduce quangos have seen quangos doubled in Wales. Recently, I undertook a study of some 51 quangos across the board in Wales. I found that 452 people sit on those quangos, spending £2 billion of taxpayers' money. Who are those people? For a start, 76 per cent. of them are male. I do not recall 76 per cent. of the population of Wales being male. Twenty-four per cent. of the 452 are female. Only one of them is from an ethnic minority. The majority of them have a public school background.
  When we look at the careers of the 452, we find that 62 are in business, 38 are accountants, 31 are in engineering, 26 are in education and 114 are directors of businesses. How many trade unionists are on Welsh quangos at present? Two people give their occupation as trade unionists. Thirty-two of the appointees do not have residences in Wales, the country that they are supposed to govern. What right do those people have to govern on our behalf? What democratic deficit exists that does not allow for an assembly to govern the services of the Welsh Office?
  Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend has made an interesting analysis of the quangos in Wales. But one factor that he has not mentioned is the enormous number of failed Tory party candidates who now chair these bodies and receive huge salaries each year. The Government cannot govern Wales because they do not have a mandate, so they send in those people to do their work for them.
  Mr. Hanson: If my hon. Friend gives me time, perhaps I can suggest what the following have in common: Bankers Investment Trust, Beazer Group, Greenalls Group, GKN, Lasmo plc, Leopold Joseph Holdings, Lucas Industries, Morgan Stanley, MEPC, Norcros plc, Pilkington, Steetley plc, Whitbread and Marks & Spencer have all given money to the Conservative party and they all have at least one person serving at a senior level on a quango in Wales at present. What do the following companies have in common? South Wales Electricity, Welsh Water plc, Welsh Water Enterprises Ltd, British Aerospace, British Gas, British Telecom, Amersham International, British Petroleum and British Steel have all been privatised by the Government and they all have senior people on quangos in Wales.
  What does the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) have in common with one of my constituents, Philip Pedley? The hon. Gentleman is a Conservative Member of Parliament; Philip Pedley is a failed Tory candidate. They have both been deputy chairman of Housing for Wales which services my constituents. I could go on. What does the chauffeur to the Secretary of State for Employment in the general election have in common with many of these people? He is on a board and he is a Tory party member. What do the 14 Conservative Members on trusts in Wales have in common with each other, apart from the fact that they are on trusts? They are Conservative party members.
  To some extent, I do not mind if the Government wish to fill their quangos with Conservative party members. However, let them be honest and fair about it, and recognise that it is not democratic. They should recognise that there is a deficit and that there is a better way to provide services—through a Welsh assembly.
  I shall give three case studies of people who are on quangos at present. When people talk about local government or Members of Parliament being bad value for money, let me cite the case of Michael Griffith who serves on a quango at present. He spends 1·5 days per month on the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales for a salary of £2,140 per year, 2·5 days per week on the Countryside Council for Wales for a salary of £29,295 and 3.5 days per week as chairman of Glan Clwyd hospital trust serving my constituency for a salary of £ 19,285 per annum. According to that, he works six days per week plus an extra 1·5 days per month for that salary, yet he has the cheek to list his occupation as farmer in the book provided by the Secretary of State for Wales. I would like to know when he finds time to do some farming when he spends six days a week on those quangos for a salary of more than £50,000 a year.
  Sir Geoffrey Inkin spends 2·5 days per week on the Cardiff bay barrage for a salary of £32,000 and 2·5 days per week on the Land Authority for Wales for a salary of £31,000. However, he lists his occupation as farmer. Finally, Sir Idris Pierce earns £10,700 for spending four days per month on the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. Those people are spending my money and that of my constituents. There needs to be more democratic control. The Labour party and the other parties represented on this side of the House wish to see a Welsh assembly. The omission of one is a major failing and flaw in the Bill.
  Irrespective of that, I ask the Secretary of State strongly to consider what needs to be done to democratise appointments to quangos, give some accountability, put the

  255
  appointments into the public domain and let people know how, when and why they can influence the decisions of quangos in Wales today.
  I commend the Secretary of State for the Bill and the changes that he has made today. I condemn him for what he will do to local government and his failure to tackle the quangos which he, of all people, should be tackling.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. David Nicholson: I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales because I will not be here when he replies. Although my mother lives in north Wales and I have arguably a Scottish surname, I intend to raise mainly United Kingdom concerns today.
  May I start by making a point that will have unanimous support in the House today? The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who happens to be my parliamentary pair, is recovering from a hip operation. When I spoke to him some months ago, he was seething because of some aspects of Scottish local government reorganisation. I do not want to enter into the merits of that issue, but I am sure that he would have liked to be here for this debate. I know that the House misses him—it is a dull place without him. We all wish him a speedy recovery and return to health. I hope that Ministers from the Scottish Office will pay due attention to the concerns that the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, other hon. Members make about local government reorganisation in Scotland.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will remember that in a previous guise he listened to entreaties from me and other Somerset Members of Parliament about local government reorganisation in England. I hope that Ministers will be careful about barging in or supporting commission recommendations for which there appears—as is certainly the case in Somerset—to be little support among the public.
  The subject of local government reorganisation has not generated significant excitement among the public, in Somerset at least. I remind my right hon. Friends that if we were to go down the path of abolishing the traditional English counties wholesale without strong local support, we would be getting rid of a tier of government whose history started long before that of this House—indeed, before the Norman conquest. I hope that we will take due caution in going down that way.
  I said that I wanted to mention certain United Kingdom matters. One of them concerns Northern Ireland, which is referred to in the Gracious Speech. We all hope for peace in Northern Ireland.
  No. 40 Commando of the Royal Marines, which is normally stationed at Norton Manor camp in my constituency, has just started a six-month tour in Northern Ireland. They will be there over Christmas. It is their first tour for six years. When they were there previously they won a sword of peace for their services in the Province.
  We hope that there can be progress towards peace, but I warn the House that I detect in the remarks of some commentators about Northern Ireland extraordinarily sloppy use of language—even more so than that which is used about European issues, although in the past few months we have been rather specific in the use of language about European issues. There has been a sloppy use of language which is designed to raise false hopes.
  256
  I do not always agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), but his intervention in the Prime Minister's speech last Thursday was, I think, a wise one. He asked what, in the various hopes of talks or talks about talks, was in it for Sinn Fein? We have to be careful not to raise false hopes.
  We should also remember that there are at least two groups of terrorists in Northern Ireland. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) in his place. If we go down the route of seeking to appease one group of terrorists, we shall almost certainly play into the hands of the other group.
  I am appalled to hear commentators, and sometimes hon. Members, drawing an absolutely incorrect colonial parallel with Northern Ireland, as if Mr. Gerry Adams were like Nehru, Nkrumah, Archbishop Makarios or Kenyatta. It is a false parallel. It will land us in deep trouble if we encourage it because Mr. Adams does not even represent a sizeable minority in Northern Ireland, let alone claim to represent a majority. I speak as someone who has been a strong Unionist as well as Conservative for many years.
  My view, and that of our late hon. Friend Sir John Biggs-Davison, who died in hospital in my constituency four years ago and with whom I worked on this for many years, is that it is as likely that Northern Ireland can be smuggled into the Republic in the forthcoming generations as that Alsace-Lorraine can be shunted back into Germany.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments. Does he agree that the media might pay attention to the wartime slogan, "Careless talk costs lives" when they talk glibly about excluding even a sizeable minority in Northern Ireland whose votes are even more numerous than those of Sinn Fein?
  Mr. Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman's intervention aptly underlined my own concern.
  I shall now discuss various measures that are referred to in the Gracious Speech, many of which I welcome. I listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill). We welcome what is proposed on the subject of law and order, but we shall need to be vigilant in the House—far more vigilant than in the past—because the high hopes that we engendered for law and order measures have been disappointed in practice when it comes to operation in the street or the court.
  I welcome the deregulation proposals, but I hope that we shall lay the emphasis in deregulation on getting rid of, or mitigating the operation of, those regulations which have often come in under European auspices during the past three or four years and caused considerable difficulties for businesses, charities, individuals, village halls and so on, especially in alleged food safety, environmental health or health and safety at work.
  It has been rumoured that about £20 million is to be spent on the kitchens of the Houses of Parliament to bring them up to the standards that are required by those measures. There is, understandably, resentment outside the Palace that we should spend that amount of public money at a time of considerable stringency, but I emphasise that that is just an indication of what, under the present regime of food safety and alleged food health, restaurants and hotels up and down the country are having to spend.
  The Castle hotel in Taunton—I hope that you know it Madam Deputy Speaker—is a fine hotel, outstanding in the west country. I am told that scores of thousands of pounds

  257
  must be spent to update its kitchens. I find that regrettable and I hope that we shall be able to encourage businesses and organisations, especially in the tourist trade, to suspend their plans until the scope of Government deregulation becomes clear.
  On the other hand, it has been said that we should not "throw out the baby with the bath water" in deregulation. That is important because many regulations have been in existence for a long time and exist for good reasons—especially regulations for consumer protection. I think especially of regulations about fire protection for furniture and night clothing.
  Some years ago, my wife made a trading standards complaint about an advertisement in the Observer colour magazine that alleged that a type of furniture was fire-resistant when those who know about such things knew that it was not. Eventually, after a year's delay in the courts, the Observer colour magazine was fined a rather paltry sum. Such measures of consumer protection exist for a purpose. I hope that we will not be in the business of sweeping away necessary measures.
  I have already referred, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Test, to the proposed legislation for magistrates courts. I have worries about that legislation.
  I shall also mention another subject that was mentioned in the debate on Thursday which causes great concern. It is not mentioned directly in the Gracious Speech, but I think that it is mentioned by implication. I refer to the operation of the Child Support Agency. Six of the 20 or so people who came to my surgery last Saturday came to make representations about the operation of the agency.
  There was an interesting article in The Independent on 5 November which suggested how the intentions of the Child Support Agency had been distorted and perverted in recent weeks. We all support the direction of the agency—I saw that in the newspapers the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) commented about that—especially in tracking down and obtaining maintenance from the two thirds of absent parents who do not currently pay maintenance. That is where the emphasis and priority must lie, but the current operations are unacceptable in many ways. I hope that we shall reconsider them. I hope that we can consider the possibility of more phasing in of big increases, of taking into account genuine costs, including the costs of visiting the children from whom a parent is estranged, and also of instituting a sensible right of appeal.
  That brings me to what is undoubtedly the biggest concern among our electors at present—the outcome of the spending review and the unified Budget, both of which are referred to in the Gracious Speech. At no recent time has either been awaited with so much complex uncertainty as to the outcome. It has been a no-holds-barred review of expenditure, rumours have therefore abounded, and it has been difficult for Ministers to deny every one authoritatively.
  During the past weekend we heard a spate of rumours, which greatly worried some members of the public who might be affected by some of the suggestions in the more extreme and exaggerated stories. We all await the announcements on 30 November and thereafter with great concern and hope that they will head off some of the more exaggerated rumours, which I hope will not be repeated after that date.
  258
  Whatever the merits of a longer-term review of the welfare state—for example, with regard to pension provision—such a review will not be relevant to the spending plans for the next few years. Nor will it affect the present generation of pensioners, who found some of the headlines alarming—albeit by implication. In the longer term, an element of political consensus will be necessary if proposals are to survive the vicissitudes of political life.
  In so far as the rumours of the past weekend related to benefits, I must remind the House of an injustice—the position of the self-employed. During this recession, unlike previous recessions, many self-employed people have found themselves without work. I do not believe that that was the case in the recession 10 years ago. Many self-employed people in my constituency have found themselves in that sad situation. They do not qualify for unemployment benefit, and if they have savings of more than £8,000, or a spouse or partner who works, they do not receive income support. I hope that any review of unemployment benefit will take self-employed people into account.
  Taxation is the other side of the unified Budget. Hon. Members may remember that I intervened on the subject last Thursday, during the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. I urge the Chancellor to beware of the Marie Antoinette tax philosophy. She has been treated harshly by history and I shall try to be fair to her. As I see it, that philosophy argues that it is necessary to protect the very poor, but it has also significantly benefited the wealthy. Under that philosophy, the cost of protection for the very poor and benefiting the wealthy falls on people on middle incomes. The public are already greatly concerned about that.
  We know about the measures that the former Chancellor proposed in the March Budget, which for the most part will not take effect until next year, and there is considerable speculation about how the present Chancellor may add to those measures. There is a great fear that people above the income support level and on modest to middle incomes will pay the cost, while people on or above, for example, the present salary of Members of Parliament—about £30,000—will not pay what I described in my intervention in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition as a fair and proportionate contribution to the burden.
  The November Budget gives the Chancellor the opportunity to right the balance. The introduction of VAT on fuel and the increase in national insurance contributions have already been announced, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider that balance carefully.
  I also hope that on 30 November he will make it clear whether he sees VAT on fuel as primarily a revenue-raising or an environmental measure. If it is just the former, he must be aware that there are alternatives and, as I have mentioned in the House before, many of our constituents—I am talking about Conservative constituents—are urging him to consider direct taxation. I know that some countries find it difficult to go down that road, but, despite the description of this country given by the leaders of the Labour and Liberal parties, we have not gone so far down the road towards a banana republic that we cannot trust our revenue-collecting authorities to avoid corruption and inefficiency and to raise tax sensibly, although some—including my favourite—European countries have a problem with raising such taxation.
  If, however, the Chancellor believes that VAT on fuel is relevant to environmental issues—I believe that it is, which

  259
  is why I have supported it hitherto—there are ways in which it can be made more effective. For example, he could introduce a significant and effective programme to give assistance for insulation. Considerable sums could be saved if domestic homes were insulated, but the insulation of schools, offices and factories, where large amounts of energy are undoubtedly wasted, could save even more. I appreciate that there could be administrative difficulties, but he might also consider zero rating standing charges, which are not particularly relevant to the actual use of fuel.
  As I said, I welcome many of the measures in the Gracious Speech. The majority of our electors—at least 98 per cent. of them—who saw the House interminably debating deep into the night issues relating to the Maastricht treaty, did not begin to understand those matters. They certainly did not understand the strange alliances, devices and manoeuvres in this House while that treaty was pursued. It will come as a great relief to them to see the House dealing with law and order, deregulation and other policies which are relevant to their concerns and to their homes and streets. I hope that we shall successfully carry forward those measures.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Eric Clarke: I shall be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to return to the subject of local government reform. I join my hon. Friends in their condemnation of the costly, gerrymandered local government reorganisation proposed for Scotland. The procedure on reform should have been either a Parliament in Edinburgh, with powers to seek a consensus of the Scottish people, to find out what form of local government they desired, or we should have had the same as England—an independent public inquiry, which would at least have had a semblance of democracy attached to it.
  The discussions here on the proposals for the Lothians, especially those affecting my constituency and the district of Midlothian, are farcical. Midlothian, West Lothian and East Lothian surround the southern, western and eastern sides of the city of Edinburgh. If need be, some amalgamation seems sensible, but it is proposed that a corridor will separate Midlothian and West Lothian.
  That corridor is not a natural boundary, although it contains the Pentland hills. In Wales, they would be mountains, but they are just hills in Scotland; they are nae very big, but I wouldnae like to stay on the top of them. Someone referred to it as the Vance-Owen corridor, but I said, "No, it's the Lang-Rifkind corridor." It has nothing to do with Bosnia; it has nothing to do with Muslims and everything to do with Conservative voters.
  It is nonsense to have an eight-mile gap between Midlothian and a part of West Lothian. It is not a natural barrier. Such a man-made barrier is totally illogical. Obviously, the situation has been gerrymandered: concocted in St. Andrew's house and endorsed in Smith square, the Conservative party headquarters, to keep their golden boys in office in a certain part of the world.
  The argument is that Midlothian may be too small. Our argument is, "Okay, if it is too small, will the Minister look at an amalgamation with East Lothian?" I do not mean part of East Lothian, but all of it. I believe that that suggestion has been put to the Minister by the local authority and it is a sensible concept of a one-tier system.
  For 16 years I was a councillor, both with Midlothian county council before reorganisation and then in the
  260
  Lothian region, and I can say that this proposal does not represent a one-tier system. I remember when it was necessary to hire the Usher hall in Edinburgh to obtain a consensus of all the councillors, when we were trying to get the small boroughs, the landward areas and particular cities together to talk about strategic planning.
  The Minister has mentioned the Wheatley report, but, in some ways, it has been totally ignored. He has taken parts out of it and said, "This is what Wheatley suggested, a one-tier system." Well, who ignored it? It was not me. I was in favour of an estuary system, in which the Forth estuary, the Tay estuary and the Clyde estuary would be part of a local authority based on the communications of that particular area. That would make a lot of common sense because they all flow into one another.
  The Government are now blaming themselves or their predecessors for the original one-tier system, but what will we get? We will get quangos, boards and multitudes of people coming together by law to be consulted on particular strategic planning. Who is going to pay for that? To whom are they accountable?
  There has been no mention of what other aspects of local government the joint boards will consider. For example, is this a back-door method of amalgamating the police into one big authority?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Clarke: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary is shaking his head. I hope that he is right and that it is not the first stepping-stone towards that. We do not like the White Paper on the reforms.
  The move that is afoot to form joint water boards worries us. I forecast that the next move will be a joint water board, with a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State, the franchising of the so-called ancillary side of this big board, and competitive contracts for outside contractors, which will do away with direct labour. People will be paid off on that basis. In other words, there will be back-door privatisation of the water facilities in Scotland.
  The people of Scotland will never forgive the Government for that. If the Government think that they can do it, there will be as much of a hue and cry about that as about any other aspect of their proposals. There has been no consultation and it is an insult to the Scottish people to put forward this made-up, mocked-up position, and to tell them that it is an update of a democratic process. That is equivalent to insult, not consult.
  I hope that the Minister will pay attention—rather than write love letters to himself, or something like that—and look at the Peat Marwick report. For many years, Peat Marwick has been given an opportunity to look into aspects of local government—in other words, it is on the gravy train. To add insult to injury, Peat Marwick has now published a document entitled "November 30th, St. Kenneth's Day", and there is a photograph of Kenneth Clarke, the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the front. It is blue in colour, which pertains to our saltire flag, and 30 November is not just Budget day but St. Andrew's day.
  That document is an insult to the people of Scotland. Will the Minister and the Chancellor dissociate themselves from this nonsense about a party to celebrate the Budget? Does Peat Marwick know something that we do not know, or is it on the gravy train? I do not think that the unemployed in Midlothian will have a party on

  261
  30 November to celebrate Budget day, which pertains to Government spending, and this is an insult to the Scottish nation.
  Scotland has a patron saint—if the Minister wants to know who it is, he should go to Central Lobby and look at the mosaic of him—and he is St. Andrew. We are very proud of St. Andrew—as are the Russians and the Greeks, who are also pleased to have him as a patron saint—and we do not want a St. Kenneth. My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and I have the same surname as the Chancellor, and we often have to say that we are no relation to the person in that photograph. I can assure the House that the Clarke clan is not proud of all its members.
  The document is an insult to Scotland and Peat Marwick should be ashamed to have issued this nonsense on the basis that it is St. Kenneth's day. So far as Scotland is concerned, 30 November is St. Andrew's day and will never be anything else—unless the Chancellor has been canonised. The people of Scotland have been insulted, not only by that matter but by the so-called reorganisation of local government.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Piers Merchant: I have listened to the majority of the debate with great interest and I have heard many excellent and interesting contributions. Regrettably, some of the contributions have been rather negative and have at times verged on the paranoid. That is a shame, because there are important issues to be discussed.
  May I apologise in advance for the fact that, regrettably, I will not be here for the wind-up because I have a meeting in my constituency about Sunday trading. I am sure that all hon. Members will sympathise with me about that.
  Sunday trading was referred to in the Gracious Speech and I congratulate the Government on bringing forward the changes proposed to Sunday trading and Sunday trading laws, which are much needed. I particularly congratulate the Government on the way in which the issue is being handled, which I think is genuinely appreciated, not only on the Conservative Benches but in the country at large.
  For many years, I have had an interest in local government, and over that period I have observed it from the outside. The proposed reforms to local government structure in Scotland and Wales can benefit from the experience that has been gained in many parts of England.
  I first remember observing local government when I was a municipal correspondent for a regional newspaper. Just before the reorganisations of the early 1970s, I remember experiencing and watching local authorities at work when they were very small and consisted of the rural district and urban district councils. I remember thinking that that sort of two-tier authority was particularly inefficient and not respected by the majority of the population.
  I have always regretted that that system was replaced by an alternative two-tier system which, although it overcame some problems, left in place a structure which maintained a degree of duplication and a larger degree of inefficiency. I have always been a supporter of the unitary concept and hoped that that would come about sooner or later.
  262
  Many years later, I sat on the Standing Committee which considered the legislation that brought about unitary authorities in the metropolitan areas, and I was a keen supporter of that. I sat on two other Standing Committees connected with local government Bills, which continued to sharpen my interest in local government and its organisation.
  There can be too much reorganisation of local government and there is a danger that we might end up having a Maoist approach to local government—that of continuous revolution or change. I would not support that sort of approach because there is a need for stability in the structure of local government. There is sometimes a tendency to be too negative about local government and I have never wanted to be that.
  I believe that local government has an important role in the political structures of our country. It does good work and achieves a great deal for the ordinary citizen by providing essential services. Its administrative ranks also display a good deal of talent. That good work can be frustrated, however, if the structure of local government is inappropriate, inefficient or costly to run, particularly if that means a duplication of services. The argument for no change in the local government of Wales and Scotland is overwhelmed by the need for change.
  The defenders of the existing local government system for Scotland and Wales—I am not sure that I have detected many in the Chamber and, if they are present, their defence was somewhat obscure—must justify, and I do not believe that they can, the cost and inefficiency of overlap. In contrast, the Government have come up with an excellent proposal for single-tier authorities. I admit that it will produce radical change, but I believe that it will greatly improve local government in Scotland and Wales. The proposal has been subject to widespread consultation and a variety of views have been expressed.
  Mr. Gordon McMaster: The hon. Gentleman has spoken glibly about consultation. The Labour party is objecting not to some form of local government restructuring but to the way in which the Government have restructured it—the gerrymandering that has gone on in the Lothians, Ayrshire and in my part of the country. My local council, Renfrew district council, consulted all the electorate in a referendum. It found that in Barrhead, Neilston and Uplawmoor—which are in the Eastwood constituency of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—out of a 56·9 per cent. turnout, 78·5 per cent. voted against the Government's proposals. In the Dykebar area of Paisley, in my constituency, out of a 78 per cent. turnout, 91 per cent. rejected the Government's proposals. We object to the reform because it has been gerrymandered.
  Mr. Merchant: I am interested in that referendum, because I recently held one on the subject of Sunday trading. I welcome such consultation. As anyone who is responsible for organising or holding referendums will know, however, the answer that is obtained is largely determined by the question that is asked. I do not want to get into a debate with the hon. Gentleman about the specific referendum that he mentioned because that would take the debate down a narrow track, but I am curious to know exactly what questions were asked and exactly what

  263
  information the electorate had before them. I doubt whether they knew the full content of the Bill proposed by my right hon. Friend.
  It is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) said that the Labour party is not arguing against reform or about much of the principle behind it, but about the detail. I hope that I understood him correctly. The principle behind the reform is to improve the provision of services by increasing accountability. The reforms will introduce clarity to the system so that individuals, companies and others know exactly which body is responsible for providing what service. That is not the case now.
  The reforms will also provide an opportunity in which local government can re-examine the quality of the service it provides. Perhaps most importantly, that reform will also provide an opportunity to improve efficiency by making it clear that one organisation has responsibility for providing certain, clearly defined services and has an obligation to pursue their provision by whatever means is thought appropriate to obtain the greatest efficiency.
  It has been estimated that in the first five years of reorganisation a saving of up to £330 million will be made. That money can then be put back into the provision of high-quality services in Wales and Scotland.
  As the hon. Member for Paisley, South said, the Labour party has made it plain that it, too, supports the concept of single-tier authorities. The Opposition's pre-election policy document entitled, "The Future of Local Government in Scotland", which was published about two years before the election, stated:
  "All-purpose councils facilitate the move to an integrated approach to service provision and also decentralisation through a local one-door approach."
  That is absolutely correct and reveals the merit of having single-tier authorities.
  The problem for the Labour party is that, having effectively conceded that it supports the principle behind the Government's reforms, it is now scratching around trying to find reasons to oppose the detail in an attempt to oppose for opposition's sake. That is particularly evident when one considers the behaviour of COSLA. At first, it stated that it would not accept any of the reforms and would not even communicate with the Government about them. When it was pressed by certain of its members, who seemed to take a different view, COSLA agreed to a request for consultation from the Under-Secretary of State to discuss nominations to the Local Government Staff Commission.
  The opinion of the Liberal Democrats and that of the Scottish National party is similar to that adopted by the Labour party. The Liberals stated clearly in their manifesto for Scotland in 1992:
  "We will introduce a single tier of local government, to deliver most of the services currently provided by districts and regions."
  George Leslie, the former local government convenor of the Scottish National party, was quoted in The Scotsman in 1992 as saying:
  "The SNP believe that the single-tier structure will be the most effective".
  That is the logic behind the Government's proposal.
  Mrs. Ray Michie: I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the Liberal Democrats are
  264
  in favour of single-tier local authorities, but we believe that they should be set up in conjunction with a Scottish parliament.
  Mr. Merchant: The hon. Lady has provided an interesting extra reflection on local government. I am not certain whether he is suggesting that a Scottish parliament should deal with local government matters and that it should be an extension of local government. If so, I am not certain that that would be particularly relevant to most people who live in Scotland. If the hon. Lady is suggesting—
  Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This precise point was dealt with earlier when the hon. Gentleman was not present. He has informed the House that he will not be present for the winding-up speeches. Is this the sort of valuable debate when people wander in, as ordered by the Tory Whips, to make a speech and then wander out again?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): That is not a matter for the Chair and nor is the content, in general, of speeches.
  Mr. Merchant: I have been present for virtually all the debate. I listened to the full contributions from the Front-Bench spokesmen and I have been absent for just 45 minutes. [Interruption.] I was aware that that point had been referred to, but I thought that it was important to draw attention—[interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not believe that the quality of the debate will be served by sedentary interruptions.
  Mr. Merchant: Perhaps the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) was insinuating that a Scottish parliament would be a branch of local government—I do not believe, however, that that is part of the argument in favour of it. If not, that parliament would have no relevance to the structure of local government within Scotland because it would perform some other role, presumably by exercising devolved powers from this House.
  Single-tier local government will deliver for the people of Scotland and Wales a better quality of service and greater accountability. The reforms have been carefully calculated by the Government to ensure that the structure of that single tier will match the traditional natural communities that exist. I welcome the fact that the flexibility within the proposals reflects that. Such a structure will be closest to the people and therefore properly in touch, yet large enough to be efficient as regards economies of scale. It therefore provides the best compromise.
  My support for that approach is strengthened by the argument for single-tier authorities that have been shown to work effectively in England. When I first sat in the House I represented a north-east constituency—Newcastle, Central—where local government was provided by two tiers: first, Newcastle city council, which provided a major structure of local government for the large city of Newcastle and which seemed capable of handling all aspects; and, secondly, a metropolitan council, Tyne and Wear, which was imposed over the top of the city council and took on certain strategic functions. It was never clear where the dividing point came and it often seemed that

  265
  those operating within the metropolitan council, councillors or officials, had nothing better to do and needed to set up committees to invent functions to justify their existence.
  The Government then rightly decided that a unitary authority would better provide facilities for people in metropolitan areas, so the county council there and similar county councils elsewhere were abolished. It produced one or two unfortunate side effect, because the people involved in local government at that level then had nowhere to go and had to find something else to fill their time. The then deputy leader of the council decided to stand for the seat that I represented and he now represents that seat in this House. Nevertheless, the experience convinced me that single-tier authorities work more effectively.
  Now that I represent an outer London seat, I experience exactly the same thing. My seat has its local government provided by a London borough—a single-tier authority—and it operates much more effectively, directly and democratically than when there was a second tier in the form of the Greater London council. This House must look after the refugees who left the GLC when it was abolished, which may be a less attractive feature of reorganisation. For the ordinary citizen, however, the quality of local government has improved as a result of that reorganisation.
  Those lessons can be transferred to the debate on Scottish and Welsh local government and show the successful benefits that will flow from the proposed reform. Not everyone who lives in Scotland and Wales fully realises the real benefits that will flow from the change. In any case, ordinary citizens may not be entirely au fait with the different responsibilities carried by local government units. But the operation of a slimmed-down local government—lean, effective and efficient—will prove extremely popular.
  By virtue of being a single-tier authority, my local authority of Bromley borough has been able to take clear steps forward in providing local services. Bromley is a great believer in the concept of the enabling authority that accepts its responsibility but devolves the executive responsibilities that go with it to agencies, to which it contracts out services. It has been in the lead of that process and has gone as far as the law allows it to go, encouraging changes in the law to enable it to continue with the philosophy of an enabling authority. It has proved to be extremely popular to provide services of a greater quality more efficiently and therefore be able to charge less council tax and become a debt-free authority, to all intents and purposes.
  I have no doubt that the reform suggested for Scotland and Wales will enable the same forward-thinking approach to local government which Bromley has illustrated. I pay tribute to Denis Barkway, the leader of Bromley borough council, who has been at the forefront of that movement.
  The same objectives drive the current local government reform proposals in Wales and Scotland. On the basis of that experience, and the experience of people who have lived in areas that have benefited from single-tier local government, I thoroughly commend that policy and that part of the Gracious Speech to the people of Wales and Scotland.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: This debate is in the context of the entire Queen's Speech. Before concentrating on local government in Wales, may I mention two or three other aspects of the Queen's Speech? It is deficient for the needs of Wales and its content is unacceptable. For example, it contains further threats to local government services by contracting out more services, which has a bearing on today's discussion. It contains a threat to social security systems, with talk of limiting benefits within affordable limits. That engenders fears for the future of invalidity, housing and unemployment benefits. Unfortunately, countless thousands of people in Wales still need unemployment benefit. Finally, it contains a ridiculous threat to the future of student unions. The draconian power of legislation is being used to go after something that should be a free association of peoples.
  Then there are the sins of omission. The Queen's Speech makes no reference to tackling unemployment, contains no Bill to deal with the housing crisis in Wales, no energy conservation Bill and no Bill to outlaw discrimination against disabled people.
  On the main theme of today's debate, it is outrageous that the Bill on local government in Wales should go to the House of Lords for its first hearing. It is a constitutional Bill and I thought that it was a tradition of Parliament that such Bills are heard first in the first Chamber. On what basis is the Bill being sent to the House of Lords for its first hearing?
  It is equally outrageous that Standing Order No. 86 is likely to be set aside. We saw how the Government could hold Welsh public opinion in contempt with the Welsh Language Bill in the last Session. Standing Order No. 86 was suspended and a Committee dealing with the Welsh Language Bill consisted of 28 members, 15 of whom were Conservatives. Of those, only six could be mustered from Wales and nine had to be drafted from England.
  Are we to see the same again, with English MPs, who do not have to live with the consequences of changes in local government, on the Committee while Welsh constituency MPs, whose areas are affected and whose local authorities expect them to speak up on their behalf in Committees, are excluded from the debate? That will not be acceptable and if the Government intend to go down that road, it is highly undesirable.
  Apparently, the Secretary of State may make a comment on timing in the wind up. As a statesman, nothing prevented him from telling the House by way of an intervention at the beginning of the debate what the timing provisions would be. It would have enabled us to deal with the likely timetable. To hold back that information until the wind-up serves no purpose other than to cut across a logical debate.
  Mr. Redwood: Given that the hon. Gentleman admits that this is a most important measure, and given that we have an all-day opportunity to debate it, why is only one member of his party present?
  Mr. Wigley: Other members of my party are here. In a party of four members, sharing out responsibilities is an onerous job and all four members are taking an interest in the debate. Given the Secretary of State's indication that he expects us to play an active part, all four of us will be

  267
  delighted to be on the Standing Committee. I shall be glad if the Secretary of State would make provision, through the Whips Office, to enable that to happen.
  The concept of local government has been developed over the century—local authorities were first set up in the late 1880s and 1890s. A central weakness is that those authorities have been regarded as a devolved aspect of central Government and not as authorities in their own right. When local authorities stand up against central Government, we know what happens—the Greater London council did so and was abolished. Local government is not regarded as an authority or as a tier or authorities in its own right, but it should be. The powers that local authorities should have are powers as of right and should not be conditioned, limited or circumscribed by central Government directive.
  Local government should also have finance as of right. For example, a proportion of VAT collected in each area should automatically go to local government so that it has money with no strings attached. That would give local government real responsibility; it is only when local government has such responsibility that it will attract the calibre of councillors needed to undertake the responsibilities and the services which communities need.
  Can we have clarification on the eligibility of teachers and others working at arm's length from local government to stand as councillors in the new unitary authorities? Will there be a preference for evening council meetings so that a broad cross-section of the community—not just the retired and those rich enough not to have to work during the day—will be able to serve on local authorities?
  I referred to the weakness of the Government's approach to local government structures. The weakness in the White Paper and in the discussion in the past couple of years is that we have failed sufficiently to consider functions and finance as well as structures. Another inadequacy is that possibly not enough attention has been given to the strengthening of community councils.
  The major and central failure is the Government's insistence on ignoring the all-Wales dimension to the considerations. There was a consensus in Wales when the Secretary of State's predecessor started the ball rolling a couple of years ago. That consensus was based on having an all-Wales elected authority. We and the Liberals, I believe, would call it an all-Wales parliament, our colleagues in the Labour party would call it an assembly. Certainly, there is a consensus that there needs to be a democratic, elected Welsh tier of government to take over the devolved responsibilities currently undertaken by the Welsh Office, particularly those undertaken by the plethora of quangos, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson).
  We need democratic control over the many functions that have been centralised. For instance, housing has been largely centralised by quangos such as Tai Cymru, and local quangos have taken over responsibilities from local authorities, including the responsibility to nominate health authorities. Therefore, we need an all-Wales elected system of government. The establishment of a parliament or assembly should have taken place before the restructuring of local government. That would have enabled a strategic approach to allow smaller unitary authorities to be created without denying a strategic decision-taking capacity. That is the danger of what we have at the moment.
  268
  An all-Wales body is relevant in the European context. With regard to the Government's consultation paper on the structure of local government in England, the Audit Commission commented:
  "There are signs that the absence of fora in which local authorities can come together to represent the interests of their broader region is beginning to disadvantage U.K. local government in its representations to the European Commission on the use of structural funds."
  If that is true, that is another powerful argument for having an all-Wales elected body to give backbone to representations made directly to Brussels.
  Many functions have been taken away from local government over the years—certainly since the days when I served as an elected member on Merthyr county borough council between 1972 and 1974. I reinforce the representations made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands)—Merthyr Tydfil is an historic borough and town, and the county borough which existed provided a model on which unitary authorities could have been based. There is a powerful argument for Merthyr—in its own right, not in combination with widespread heads of the valleys—justifying its continued individual existence.
  The White Paper published earlier this year states that the number of fire brigades in Wales will be reduced from eight to three. Will the Secretary of State give a categorical assurance that no other powers will be taken away from local government? What are his intentions regarding national parks in Wales? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that services such as trading standards and social services can be provided with the same expertise, effectiveness and efficiency as at present, without elaborate and undemocratic joint arrangements?
  The White Paper makes a number of references to reserve powers that the Secretary of State proposes to have available to him—for example,
  "for use as necessary to ensure that proper service delivery arrangements are in place".
  Will the Secretary of State elaborate on the number and nature of the reserve or default powers with which he intends to provide himself in the legislation? Does not the need for reserve powers show either that the proposed structure is fundamentally flawed or that one of the main purposes of the reorganisation is to transfer powers from local authorities to central Government—or possibly even both?
  The Secretary of State will be aware of the recent study carried out by a team of top finance officers that showed that the transitional cost of creating 21 unitary authorities amounted to £202 million at 1995-96 prices over a 15-year period. It showed that the running of the new authorities would cost another £6·2 million per annum more than the status quo. Does the Secretary of State agree with the figures? If not, what are his estimates of the transitional and running costs of the new authorities? I have it on good authority that the figures have been accepted by the Treasury—
  Mr. Redwood indicated dissent.
  Mr. Wigley: The Secretary of State shakes his head—the argument within Government is a matter of interest.
  Whether the costs are in the right ballpark or the Secretary of State provides alternative figures, I hope that he will be able to give an absolute assurance that none of the cost will have to be taken from the provision of services

  269
  that fall under local government at present. I hope that he can assure us that any and all additional money will come from the Treasury.
  On the definition of the units of local government, clearly there must be fine tuning to maximise the community of interest of the proposed local authorities. It has been said by a number of hon. Members that there is some consensus on the need for unitary authorities in Wales—in the context of an all-Wales elected authority. If we are to have unitary authorities, we must ensure that the boundaries are right.
  I hope that there will be a mechanism for fine tuning to allow that to happen as the Bill proceeds through Parliament or soon after the authorities are set up. Parts of Aberconwy and the Colwyn area might want to be in Gwynedd and Denbighshire respectively. I have referred to Merthyr, and we should also consider Montgomeryshire. Half my family forebears lived in Montgomeryshire, and it would be unacceptable if it disappeared off the map. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Secretary of State may find a way round that.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the argument goes further than just the historical and community interests of Montgomeryshire? The proposal for an authority covering a vast proportion of the land area of Wales—about 2,250 square miles—cannot be regarded as a local authority.
  Mr. Wigley: That is the conundrum. How do we create an authority small enough to be local and genuinely representative of communities but large enough to be able to undertake the large responsibilities that unitary authorities must have? That is the difficulty wherever we are—to some extent it is a matter of resources. However, there is a balance of argument in each individual instance, and the balance in Montgomeryshire is certainly in favour of retaining it.
  The name Caernarfonshire and Merionnyddshire is not satisfactory; I am sure that another name can be found—for example, Eryri or even Gwynedd. There is not a lot of sense in linking the two names, and I do not believe that that is what people in the area want.
  I turn to the matter of timetabling in ignorance of what may be said later. The proposed timetable for implementing the Government's proposals grows daily more impractical, which the Secretary of State may recognise later tonight. The impracticality results partly from the way in which the proposals have proceeded up till now. When one compares the process with the timetable for England and Scotland, the Secretary of State seems to be intent on proceeding with unseemly haste. I hope that we shall have an announcement on that.
  It is interesting to consider the Local Government Act 1972. There was a period of 18 months after that Act received Royal Assent before the new authorities took over, and a considerable amount of the work had to be undertaken during that time to enable the policies to work. I know that full well as a councillor and as the son of a local government officer who served at that time.
  It is proposed that the Bill should be in place no more than 12 months after enactment, an extremely tight timetable indeed. In the 1972-74 period, considerable preparatory work was done on the basis of joint
  270
  co-operation before legislation was in place. That has not been so this time because of a lack of consensus between counties and districts. Reorganisation was straightforward in 1974 because major local authority units were generally brought together from smaller units. This time, the Government plan to tear them apart, which will take considerably more time to make work effectively.
  If there is a 12-month delay, which I suspect will be announced as an inevitable conclusion of the way in which things are moving, I hope that it will be used to secure co-operation throughout Wales about service delivery plans. That time could be used effectively to ensure a better understanding of service delivery than exists at present.
  Most of all, I hope that the time will be used to secure an all-Wales level of democracy, which is the key to getting consensus in Wales and which will lead to a more satisfactory restructuring of local government.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words and to follow the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).
  I should like to make particular reference to local government in Scotland, having been involved in Edinburgh corporation, a single-tier authority, as a baillie, and on Lothian regional council, one authority in a two-tier system, at the upper level.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) rightly said that there are many other demands in Scotland and elsewhere for the funds that will be swallowed up by this reorganisation of local government. He said that he had a number of other suggestions for legislation that is necessary in Scotland. He mentioned child care in particular, but many other measures also urgently need enacting.
  I should like to mention such a measure, although it is unconnected with local government. There is a feeling of grave injustice, certainly among my constituents and I think far wider, at the way in which company directors are voting themselves huge salary increases and even larger bonsuses and immense share options at a time when their workers are being limited to very small wage increases in their already modest wages. Such increases for directors are immoral and indefensible.
  We have had the worst example today of Peter Wood of First Direct receiving a £10 million increase. He does not earn that amount. It is money paid to him by the Royal bank, which is as much to blame as anyone for having allowed this situation to develop. It is not the bank's money: it is its customers' money, which people who can ill afford it are being asked to pay to someone who does not need it.
  There are many other examples of such legalised theft, which needs to be stopped now. It is an appalling indictment of our society. If there is a legislative gap, we should introduce a Bill to curb such abuse.
  I say to Conservative Members—to those who have managed to remain and to the one or two have dodged in and spoken and returned; I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) has managed to dodge back in again—that I am in favour of single-tier authorities, but a Scottish parliament and a legislative assembly for Wales must be in place first. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) said that that is the policy of the Liberal

  271
  Democrats, too. A Scottish parliament should then decide the structure of local government for Scotland. That would have been sensible and it remains the policy of the Labour party in Scotland.
  An independent commission should have decided the structure of local government. A truly independent commission decided the last restructuring of local government. Lord Wheatley, a Labour Member, Tom Fraser, another Labour Member, Betty Harvie-Anderson, a Conservative Member and a Deputy Speaker, and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) were members of that commission. In addition, there were other members who were not involved in party politics.
  The commission objectively investigated local government structures in Scotland and dealt with the range of services that were provided. The notable feature of the current so-called review of local government is not only that it is partisan and political but that it is badly incomplete. There is gap after gap in the structure of local government reorganisation; area after area has not been considered. I have written to Ministers about one or two—for example, justices of the peace and aspects of children's panels—which have not been taken into account in the reorganisation. I have had very poor responses, if any, from Ministers.
  I tabled a question in the summer about a staff commission and a property commission, which we had in the last reorganisation of local government in Scotland in 1973-74. Lo and behold, not long afterwards, the Under-Secretary of State suddenly realised that he should have done something about it and made an announcement about the staff commission, but only in general principle and not in detail.
  Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am sure that he would not want inadvertently to mislead the House. I gave an assurance to the Scottish Trades Union Congress much earlier than last summer that a staff commission would be set up.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful for that, but the Minister has not said in detail how it will operate, who the members will be or what its structure will be. He still has not said anything about the property commission, which was important.
  An Organisation and Management in Local Government report was produced on the structure of local government management. An independent commission was set up by a Conservative Government and there was even a chap on it called Councillor G. Foulkes of Edinburgh, so it must have been independent. It was called the Patterson committee and it investigated the structure of local government. That has not been done this time. Area after area of local government structures has not been considered as part of the current reorganisation. Last time, Wheatley considered the structure in detail and made recommendations, and the House debated the matter. In Committee, we shall have some very searching questions to ask the Minister and the Secretary of State.
  In an earlier intervention, I asked whether what the Government propose is really single-tier. I do not think that it is. I am in favour of a good, all-purpose, single-tier authority, with authorities having the clout and the right size to deliver all services without recourse to joint boards, but that is not what is proposed.
  272
  The Secretary of State, who is not here at the moment, said that I was wrong, without saying why. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Wales or the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland could say why I was wrong, because, as I understand it, water and sewerage will be dealt with by three quangos, non-elected boards. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton is right: we should give one and a half cheers for that, because at least it is not privatisation, although regrettably it could be one step on the way to privatisation. However, we shall have a Labour Government, so fortunately the other step and a half will not be taken.
  Water and sewerage will be dealt with at the Strathclyde level. In Strathclyde, as I understand it, the passenger transport executive is to continue at that level and the police and fire services will also continue at that level. We will then have a so-called all-purpose, single-tier authority and because some of the services are so small, they will have to join together as joint boards. The proposal is a total mess. It is not a single-tier authority, and certainly will not give accountability.
  We know, of course, that the Conservative party is not worried about democratic accountability. The House heard my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) talk about the quangos in Wales. It is exactly the same in Scotland. Tories who could not get elected and who do not have the support of the people whom they put themselves up to represent have been appointed by the Secretary of State.
  I will give some examples, particularly from the health service. Eileen Bates stood on a number of occasions in a constituency, and did not get elected. She moved to another constituency and did not get elected there either. The Secretary of State then appointed her to the community health trust in Ayrshire.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton referred to the particularly notorious case of Bill Fyfe. I endorse every word that my hon. Friend said. I may tell the House that there was a great cheer in Ayrshire when Mr. Fyfe was appointed as chairman of Greater Glasgow health board and moved away from the chairmanship of the Ayrshire health board. It seems strange that the Secretary of State could not find anyone from Greater Glasgow to be the chairman of the health board. I must say that Mr. Fyfe now seems to be very shy of the media, which he was not when things were going in his direction in Ayrshire.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman be recommending to those failed Labour candidates in Wales who have accepted public office that they should decline it?
  Mr. Foulkes: I do not know of any. Most of the Labour candidates in Wales succeed, just as most of the Labour candidates in Scotland succeed.
  I now come to the case of Ayrshire itself. What we have in the local government reorganisation is a series of five or six rotten boroughs which will be set up by the Government. The Minister in particular is the architect of that, and I am glad that he is sitting on the Government Bench today. My colleagues from Cumnock and Doon Valley all support an all-Ayrshire authority, and my Labour colleagues from Kyle and Carrick support an all-Ayrshire authority. They came with me to argue that case with the Minister and they did so in an articulate,

  273
  responsible, and powerful way. Naive as they may be, they expected an articulate, responsible, and powerful argument from the Minister in favour of his proposals.
  The amazing thing was that the Minister could not answer or justify his proposals, because there is no logical justification for them. There is also no support for them. That is why we support an all-Ayrshire authority. First, the public want it, as even the hon. Member for Ayr has to admit. The hon. Gentleman has been at three public meetings and he has been forced to accept that the people who attended those meetings overwhelmingly reject what the Secretary of State proposes. They want an all-Ayrshire authority.
  Mr. Gallie: I certainly do not accept the point that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) makes. He referred to a number of Labour councillors in south Ayrshire who support an all-Ayrshire authority. There are a lot more Tory councillors in Kyle and Carrick than Labour councillors, and they all support the south Ayrshire authority that is to be established. Many of my constituents also support it, as do retailers in my constituency, who have made strong arguments. The hon. Gentleman is totally wrong.
  Mr. Foulkes: If the recommendations of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission are passed, the hon. Gentleman may no longer represent Ayr. Looking at the demographic make-up of the proposed constituency, he may have to move somewhere else.
  The hon. Gentleman attended public meeting after public meeting and argued in his usual articulate and powerful way the case for the Government's proposals. In one meeting, only four people supported him and in another no one at all supported the proposals.
  There are one or two people—such as Provost Gibson Macdonald, who wants to keep a little Tory fiefdom in Kyle and Carrick—who want to retain that authority. But those people are few and those views are not coming from the people at all. The people of Ayrshire are cynical about the Government's attitude to consultation.
  I am glad that the Secretary of State for Wales is here. We have had a period of consultation in Ayrshire about the setting up of one of the first NHS trusts in Scotland, the South Ayrshire NHS trust. Almost everyone in Ayrshire is against it, with only a handful in favour. All the doctors, the nurses, and the paramedics in the health board area are against the proposal, as were the vast majority of people in consultation. However, the Secretary of State for Scotland went ahead.
  One of the main arguments that we made during the consultation was that we would end up with a huge number of grey-suited bureaucrats with the new structure. That was exactly what was argued. Suddenly, just a week ago, the Secretary of State for Wales wakes up from a long sleep, like Rip van Winkle, and realises that that is precisely what has happened in the reorganisation of the NHS. What we predicted has come true, and the Secretary of State was absolutely right. There are far too many bureaucrats, and not enough medics and nurses.
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman should read more of my speech, which he might find enlightening. The speech said that trusts were excellent, give patients and doctors more choice, and permit us to reduce bureaucracy
  274
  in England, Wales, and in Scotland in a way that I would like. I am delighted to learn that the hon. Gentleman and his party would also like that. In the past, the Opposition set up a lot of the authorities and a lot of the bureaucracy.
  Mr. Foulkes: That is not our experience in Ayrshire. The Secretary of State for Wales is closer to those matters than I, being a member of the Government and of the Cabinet. If he can give me one example of a trust that has reduced the number of bureaucrats, I will swallow my words.
  Mr. Redwood: The creation of trusts enables us to cut bureaucracy in the districts and the regions. That is exactly what the Secretary of State for Health is doing and what I am doing in Wales.
  Mr. Foulkes: The House will see that the Secretary of State for Wales generalises, and cannot give me a specific example. We know what has happened in Ayrshire. Where previously we had one board with one general manager, we now have one board, three trusts, and four general managers. We have also four directors of finance and four directors of administration. They are not called personnel officers now—they have a fancy title—but we now have four directors of human resources. Those are the grey-suited men, and there are fewer doctors, fewer nurses, and fewer paramedics.
  That is what we were saying about local government reorganisation. It is being rejected by the people of Ayrshire, and I hope that the Government will, on this occasion, listen to the people of Ayrshire. The Secretary of State for Wales conceded that we got it right the last time round.
  Secondly, Ayrshire is the right size to provide the services. It is the optimum size and was examined by Wheatley, as were Fife, Central and others at the time. Those areas were able to provide a whole range of services. Ayrshire is the optimum size for education, social work, planning, and for a whole range of services. All those services can be provided without recourse to joint boards.
  Thirdly, if an all-Ayrshire authority were set up, it would match the other bodies in Ayrshire, such as the health board, the chamber of industry, Enterprise Ayrshire, and the tourist board. Therefore, the boundaries would be coterminous and co-operation would be much more possible.
  Fourthly, the authority would have the strength to deal with the European Community in the way in which Strathclyde does to get funds for areas of great deprivation.
  Finally, there is the argument of geography. The Secretary of State is proposing an amazing division of Ayrshire, where most of what is to be called North Ayrshire will be in fact south of most of South Ayrshire. It is an astonishing proposal and it defies all logic.
  I wish to make two general points before I conclude. First, the councillors who serve on the present authorities and will serve on the new authorities are much maligned, often in the House and a great deal in the press. Councillors strive to do their best. They have to declare their pecuniary interests. I wish that Conservative Members were as scrupulous as councillors in declaring their interests. Councillors receive little remuneration and work long hours. We ought to provide for proper recognition of the place of councillors in the new authorities and proper remuneration.

  275
  My second point is in some justification of my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) who, like many councillors, was vilified by the press, in particular the Scottish press, when he was shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. He was vilified by The Scotsman when he predicted during our annual conference in Brighton that the Welsh reorganisation of local government was likely to be postponed a year. The Scotsman said, "What a ridiculous suggestion. This chap does not know what he is talking about. He has been drinking in the bars and picking up gossip."
  Yet today, if what my hon. Friends tell me is correct, it looks as if we are about to hear an announcement that the Welsh reorganisation will be postponed for a year. My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands deserves an apology from The Scotsman. The Secretary of State for Scotland ought to think again about Scottish reorganisation. If the Welsh reorganisation is to be postponed for a year, and there is no Bill to reorganise English local government, why are we in Scotland once again the scapegoats one year ahead of all the other reorganisations?
  The proposed reorganisation in Scotland is a gerrymander. It is a gerrymander to set up Greater Eastwood, and so that that does not stick out like a sore thumb, Kyle and Carrick will be renamed South Ayrshire. Someone suggested to me that it ought to be called Gallie-lee in honour of the hon. Member for Ayr. We shall have Stirling authority for the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). It is corrupt gerrymandering and a partisan plan by which the Government hope to retain Conservative control of authorities.
  The Government do not want local government to be powerful. They want to neutralise the councils, contract out the services, opt out the schools, centralise the powers as much as possible in central Government and create as many joint boards as possible. The Government are not interested in local government. We are interested in local government. The proposal should be scrapped until we have a Scottish parliament, a Labour Government and proper reorganisation.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. Graham Riddick: I imagine that what the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)—
  Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You always protect the interests of Back Benchers carefully. Several Welsh and Scottish Members still wish to speak. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) is a chalk jockey who has been sent in by the Whips and has not been here for most of the debate, including—I will be corrected if I am wrong—the opening speeches. Is it right that he should take up the time of the House when we are supposedly discussing Welsh and Scottish local government?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): It is not for me to say who should speak on either side. I do not know how long the hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber. I have called the hon. Gentleman and he must make his speech.
  Mr. Riddick: I was in the Chamber at half-past two this afternoon. I heard both the opening speeches from the Front Benches. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) owes me an apology. I was here
  276
  until 10 minutes to 5 because I had a meeting at 5 o'clock. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will apologise for accusing me of not being present for the opening speeches.
  I apologise to the House that I was not able to be here for the middle part of the debate. I wish that I had been able to be here. I wrote to the Speaker on Friday making it clear that I wished to participate in today's debate. I was here for the opening speeches. I knew that I had a meeting in the middle of the debate. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will now apologise.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Of course I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if he was here during the opening speeches. But it is not right that he should be out of the Chamber for two and a half hours and then speak in a debate on Scottish and Welsh local government when he has no interest in that subject except as a chalk jockey sent in by the Government Whips.
  Mr. Riddick: The hon. and learned Gentleman owes me another apology.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Several right hon. and hon. Members hope to catch my eye in the time available. If we continue like this, some of them who have sat here all day will be disappointed.
  Mr. Riddick: I am grateful to you for making that clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have worked on my speech over the weekend so I have not been sent in by the Whips. The hon. and learned Gentleman can apologise to me about that at another time.
  The Opposition choose the subjects for debate on the Queen's Speech. It is a good illustration of the Labour party's priorities that it devoted a whole day to local government reorganisation in Scotland and Wales and bracketed law and order and education together and gave them one day's debate. I do not doubt for a moment that local government reorganisation in Scotland and Wales is important, but the matters which worry my constituents are the problems of lawlessness and the need to drive up education standards.
  I suppose that it is no more than we should expect that the Labour party shows such scant regard for issues of law and order. As we know, it devoted only 155 words to law and order in its general election manifesto. That was fewer than the words that it devoted to the arts and leisure. Perhaps it also shows the influence of the Scots and the Welsh in the Labour party that a whole day was given to local government reorganisation in Scotland and Wales.
  I want to make it crystal clear that, although I am delighted to speak in the debate today, I shall not volunteer to sit on the Standing Committee which will consider the local government Bill. I appreciate that other hon. Members have more expertise in local government in Wales and Scotland.
  We have had a lot of hot air and synthetic rage from Opposition Members. I noticed that during the Front-Bench speeches—for which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that I was not here, but has apologised for doing so—there were only 16 Labour Scottish Members in the Chamber. So there was a great deal of synthetic anger in what we heard tonight.
  I regret that the Government do not intend to privatise the water industry in Scotland. We have seen clear benefits of privatisation in England in not only the water industry

  277
  but a host of other industries. We have seen increased efficiency. The water companies as well as all the other privatised companies, such as British Telecom and British Gas, have become more consumer-oriented. The privatised water companies have been able to attract massive investment for the improvements that were needed.
  On balance, I welcome the introduction of unitary authorities. I believe that they will lead to more rational decision-making in local government. Opposition Members do not have too much to fear from unitary authorities. My constituency is in West Yorkshire. When we abolished the county council in West Yorkshire, everyone said that it would be disastrous. It has not been. My local council is called Kirklees. It is Labour-controlled. I do not like it very much, but it has not been disastrous. The only reason why it has not worked as well as it might have done is that it has been controlled by the Labour party.
  I accept that Kirklees council is too big. I should like to see it split. I hope that the Local Government Commission will examine the status of Kirklees council in the near future. We should create a new council based on the Huddersfield area. That is what my constituents want.
  My third point relates to the proposals of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats to introduce regional assemblies. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) admitted that there will be four distinct levels of government—municipal, regional, national and European. What has bedevilled this country for so long is not too little government, but too much government. Yet the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats advocate that we should introduce a new layer.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: On that point, surely the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) must be aware that Germany, which is the most successful country in the post-war European economy, has strong municipal government, extremely strong regional government and national Government and was a main player in the creation of the European Community. It does not seem to have suffered from doing all those things.
  Mr. Riddick: Germany is not exactly without its problems at the moment. I believe that the reason why it has prospered since the war is that it has had a stable economic framework in which its industries have been able to flourish and invest. I do not put that down to its system of government.
  The one thing that we know for sure is that politicians want to justify their existence. If there are more politicians, or if more assemblies are created, which need politicians to man them, one must give those politicians something to do.
  Here I am, making a speech in the House of Commons justifying my existence. I know that there are not so many people in the Chamber and I do not suppose that anyone will take any notice of my speech, but I hope that they will.
  Mr. Michael Bates: I will.
  Mr. Riddick: My hon. Friend says that he will. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, an important Member of the Cabinet, is also here listening to my speech; he is one of the men who are formulating policy and generating ideas in the country at the moment. I am delighted to see him in his place.
  278
  The reality is that when politicians look for things to do, they usually start by interfering in the lives of ordinary folk. They want to pass laws. I do not quite understand why the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats want to foist yet more government on the nation when clearly we have been suffering from far too much.
  One forecast that I would make is that if we were to set up those regional assemblies, one could be sure that they would participate in the latest fashion—political correctness. County councils are currently voting to ban hunting on most of their land. It is fairly meaningless, of course, but it is the politically correct thing to do at the moment.
  The Labour party says that so many women candidates must be selected in marginal seats. I think that the Labour party will get into serious trouble and it has already generated much unrest within those constituencies. It is a time-bomb waiting to explode. I notice that the black section of the Labour party is now saying that 30 inner-city seats should be devoted specifically to black candidates. I would have thought that people should be appointed as candidates on merit. That is certainly the way that we go about it in the Conservative party. [Interruption.] The Labour party ought to follow that example.
  I am sorry to say that, even in the national health service, we see a little bit of political correctness at the moment. It is an unfortunate spectacle that right now the NHS is paying compensation to a retired admiral because he did not get the job as chairman of the Cornwall health trust, for one simple politically correct reason—he is a man.
  I noticed in Hansard the other day that we are spending half a million pounds on setting up a race unit in the NHS. Again, I must say that I am slightly dubious about such an approach.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) should understand that there are certain matters in the health service in which it is important that ethnic minorities have a proper say and in respect of which their illnesses should be properly considered. He will know of the problems of sickle-cell anaemia, which particularly affects the black and Greek populations in this country, about which the NHS knows little and for which it has not done enough to be able to deal with.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Colne Valley will not simply discard those matters because he takes a jaundiced view on issues on the basis that he thinks that it is politically correct to do so. It is correct from the point of view of the health service that there are units that look at particular problems that affect different people.
  Mr. Riddick: The hon. Gentleman has made a perfectly sound point. However, I do not agree with him that one needs to set up a specialist unit in that way. I have about 3,000 Pakistanis in my constituency. My local council in Kirklees, to which I have already referred, has an equal opportunities unit. Many of those Pakistanis have told me that they do not want that unit to exist. They see it swallowing up a great deal of money. They also see that the unit does not do much for them.
  The best way to promote the interests of ethnic minorities is to ensure that the management is well aware of all the problems, the difficulties and the needs of ethnic minorities. I genuinely believe that there is an awful lot of political correctness about the way that we have seen some of those race units, equal opportunities units and so on

  279
  being set up. If it was left to me, the Equal Opportunities Commission, which currently costs the Government £5 million per annum, would be abolished. It does not carry out any particularly useful purpose.
  I hope and believe that the Queen's Speech heralds a break from that sort of approach, and that we will go "back to basics", as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has described. We shall take on the civil servants in Whitehall who justify their existence in such numbers by introducing new regulation after new regulation. I welcome the changes that are taking place in Whitehall—market testing and putting senior civil servants on to contracts. That is a revolutionary but welcome idea. It seems to me that we should make it quite clear in their contract that they will be rewarded for employing fewer civil servants and for spending less public money than was budgeted for. At the moment, it seems to be quite the opposite way around.
  We are also going "back to basics" because we are taking on the liberal-minded do-gooders who have dominated Home Office thinking for the past 30 years. We are challenging the legal establishment that says that the British legal system is the finest in the world and should not be changed in any way; the same establishment which defends the right to silence, which has been of such benefit to so many criminals over so many years.
  The reality is that it is terrorists, child killers and ordinary criminals who benefit from the right to silence. They have used that right ruthlessly. I have talked to a number of police officers and they all tell me that it is amazing how even 14, 15 or 16-year-olds, when they come into the police cells, say nothing. They are well aware that they do not have to say anything and that the right to silence exists. Their refusal to say what they were doing and where they were at a particular time cannot be taken into account by a court when and if they come up for trial.
  I am delighted that the Government have grasped that nettle and that we will be doing something about it. The reality is that the tape recording of inverviews, which now takes place, provides the safeguard for those people who might be mistreated by the police and will ensure that we do not have miscarriages of justice. We have the example of a case in Leeds last weekend, when the judge said that one of the statements made by the suspect in a police cell was not admissible in court.
  It seems to me that there are two factors that will deter people from offending: first, the likelihood of being caught; and secondly, when they are caught, the likelihood of being severely punished. We are taking measures on both those fronts. The police Bill should improve the effectiveness of the police. I hope that the reduction of senior ranks within the police force will lead to more police officers on the streets. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary recently made an announcement about reducing paperwork.
  Last Friday night, I went to address the Huddersfield police forum with my neighbouring MP, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). The Labour chairman of the forum referred to the changes that we are making to the police authorities. He said that they were anti-democratic and that the police authorities, as currently constituted, represented true democracy. He said that police authorities were where people could look to obtain redress and ensure that their views are known.
  I asked the people present at the forum to raise their hands if they knew the name of the chairman of West
  280
  Yorkshire police authority. The only person who knew that individual's name was the Labour chairman of the police forum.
  We want police authorities that are professional in their outlook and depoliticised. I believe that the new police Bill will achieve that. It is time to reintroduce the concepts of deterrence and punishment. I welcome the changes that have been made to cautioning. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made a very robust change to the cautioning regime only recently. I also welcome the tougher punishment of juvenile offenders and the crackdown on bail bandits.
  I obviously support a settlement that will bring peace in Northern Ireland. However, we must not forget that the initiatives that were taken over the past 20 years were designed to bring peace. Sunningdale and the Anglo-Irish Agreement were meant to bring peace. At the end of the day, the objectives of the IRA terrorists were not fulfilled by those agreements. Therefore, they continued to kill, encouraged by the political movement which their violence had brought about.
  The IRA, the SDLP and the Irish Government all have a united Ireland as their ultimate objective. That is something which the British Government cannot and must not give ground on, certainly not by allowing the Irish Government a greater say in how Northern Ireland is governed.
  If the peace process involves the nationalist factions giving ground, that is absolutely fine. However, I do not see how the British Government can give any further ground. We have already allowed the Irish Government some say in how Northern Ireland is governed. I do not see how we can go any further than that and I hope that we will not. Tonight's debate is about local government and I should like to see more and proper local government in Northern Ireland.
  I welcome other measures in the Queen's Speech such as the reform of student unions, the reform of teacher training, the privatisation of British Coal and the fact that, at long last, we are going to sort out Sunday trading. Those are all very positive measures.
  This autumn's Conservative party conference and this Queen's Speech will prove to be a turning point. There can be no doubt that this year has been very difficult for the Government. We will not become popular overnight. However, I believe that the Conservative star will undoubtedly shine bright once again because we have returned to our fundamental philosophy.
  We allowed public spending to rise to an unsustainably high level and we are now tackling that. We put aside our belief in free markets when we joined the exchange rate mechanism, but we now have appropriate economic and monetary policies. As a result, economic growth has resumed; we have low inflation and unemployment is falling. That is good news and it has come about because we are now following Conservative policies.
  It was interesting to see how grumpy the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was during the debate on the Queen's Speech last Thursday. He was grumpy because the unemployment figure had fallen by 50,000 on that very day and he had just taken on the job as Opposition employment spokesman. He was fed up because we had already shot his fox. The Opposition are also fed up tonight.
  The Queen's Speech heralds the fact that we are now following Conservative principles which are acting as our

  281
  guiding light. Those principles include our belief in free markets, our belief in private enterprise and in personal freedom and personal responsibility and the reintroduction of proper deterrence and punishment into the law and order system.
  What a contrast all that is to the Labour party. After 14 years, the Labour party still has not developed a coherent policy and philosophy of its own because, in its heart of hearts, it still believes in the old philosophy of equality, state control of industry, politicians running the lives of ordinary people and higher taxes. That is what the Labour party truly believes. Labour cannot say it, because it knows that that does not win elections. People do not want it.
  The Conservative party and Conservative politicians, not least my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, are generating ideas. The Queen's Speech is full of policies that go with the grain of human nature and the grain of Conservative philosophy. That is why I will support it enthusiastically.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Peter Hain: This Queen's Speech will be a drag anchor on Wales. It contains no strategy for industry, for full employment or for building housing and overcoming the homeless and housing crisis in Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Instead, we have a fatuous set of new right dogma involving deregulation and cutting safety and conditions at work. There are more private mines in my constituency than in any other. Over the past 20 months, two miners have died and one has been paralysed from the waist down. That situation will become worse as a result of the deregulation measures.
  The Queen's Speech is the product of an exhausted and bankrupt ideology which the Government are seeking to progress. The Secretary of State for Wales should spend more time looking after the interest of Wales and not seeking out scapegoats like single mothers or broadcasting on every possible Thatcherite fad into which he can get his claws.
  With regard to local government, my hon. Friends have quite properly paid a great deal of attention to boundaries. Neath has an historic tradition of which it is proud. The town of Neath dates back to Roman times. It has a strong sense of community and it wishes to retain a viable identity in its own right.
  We are very proud of our extremely strong sense of community in Neath. That is a strong tradition on which we are building and we will build on it for the future. Either I or my hon. Friends—if I am not a member of the Standing Committee—will move an amendment to the Welsh local government Bill to keep Neath's identity.
  If there is to be a shotgun marriage between Neath and Port Talbot, the Secretary of State's proposal to bring in the Upper Lliw valley is logical. The removal of Ystradgynlais and Tawe Uchaf from the original White Paper proposals is also welcome. There are details around the edges which must be examined. It is illogical for Pontneathvaughan to be outside the new Neath, Port Talbot and Lliw West Glamorgan authority. However, perhaps that can be addressed later.
  I will be brief as others wish to speak. The new Bill on local government and what the Government have been doing and plan to do in future will destroy the principle of
  282
  local democracy. The Government are creating a situation in which town halls will simply become agents for administering contracts. The leader of the new authority will effectively be the chair of the board of a giant company and the chief executive his or her managing director. Local services will be hived off, opted out, contracted out and privatised.
  Apparently, there will be pressure from the Government to sell the assets of local authorities to cut the ability of local government to perform the innovative role that it has traditionally played, especially in Wales. There are even proposals from some Conservative Back Benchers to abolish local education authorities entirely. That has always been the Government's agenda under opting out. As local education authorities are effectively abolished, local government will no longer have a strategic approach to education.
  There has even been another proposal put forward by a Back Bench Conservative Member of Parliament. We cannot dismiss it as an outpouring of some demented Thatcherite because, inevitably, the proposals will appear in a pamphlet and, a year or two later, will appear in the Queen's Speech. The hon. Member proposes that local authorities should be required to sell off all council housing at a rate of 10 per cent. a year until it is all sold off. That will destroy the ability of many local families to enjoy the prospect of owning their own home. In my constituency, families face the desperate plight of having no opportunity to get a home—no council homes are being built because local authorities are prevented from doing so.
  The more fundamental issue at stake in the Government's approach to local authorities is the destruction of the principle of citizenship. We are all being forced to become consumers of education services, consumers of health services and consumers of social services. As individuals, we are being turned from citizens into consumers in which the market rules rather than the principle of service and provision according to everybody's need, either as individuals or as a community. It is a fundamental change that is not being acknowledged.
  Local government and public services are being compartmentalised. Every little service, agency and area of activity pursues its own narrow self-interest and that destroys democracy through democratic institutions and so destroys citizenship and the ability to take a general interest in affairs that are in the broad public interest. We are all being segmented into each area of government and it is destroying the democratic tradition that goes back to the ancient Greek polis, where one became a real citizen through political activity and participation in politics. Politics meant a system of services to provide for the needs of society and the nation. That tradition is now being undermined because citizenship is being destroyed and local government is no longer able to express the needs of local citizens.
  That entire thrust is to be seen most sharply in what I term as the "quangoitis" that has broken out in Wales unlike almost anywhere else in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) eloquently described the problem of quangos and how the number in Wales has doubled since 1979 from 40 to over 80 bodies that are filled with men and women appointed by the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. Gentleman informed the House that there were 40 quangos in 1979. Why did the Wales for the Assembly Campaign in 1979 claim that there were 100 during the referendum on devolution?
  Mr. Hain: It depends how one defines quangos, but I have quoted the official figures. There is now a new elite of 1,400 place men and women in those "quangia" who are responsible for administering services that were previously accountable either to Members of Parliament or to local councils. Those "quangia" control budgets of well over £2 billion—almost the same as the entire local government budget in Wales.
  As privatisation, opting out, contracting-out and market testing are driven through remorselessly, almost every public service will be run by a quango or a private company. Members of such "quangia" are in some cases paid more money for a couple of days work in a month than a nurse or a postman earns in an entire year. 'That is destroying the whole principle of democratic government. National government is being hived off into hundreds of different agencies and local council work sub-contracted to private operators or opted-out boards. The whole civic structure is decomposing.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will directly address the threat that such destruction is opening the door to massive corruption. The public service system in Britain has been the envy of the world because it has been relatively or entirely free of corruption. In a system as fragmented as the one to be introduced, public accountability will become increasingly difficult. We have already had a taster of that with the shenanigans of the Welsh Development Agency.
  As such fragmentation accelerates and it becomes the function of local government not to deliver services strategically but merely to dish out contracts to private operators, there will be an increasing number of back-handers and all sorts of other corruption will take root and drive the machine of government. I do not believe that the Conservatives have sufficiently woken up to this, or if they have they seem content to allow it to continue.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Wales is comparatively well-off in comparison with Northern Ireland where four times as many people are appointed to quangos spending 10 times the amount spent by local government? I share the thrust of his argument.
  Mr. Hain: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to expand on that subject later.
  One of the dimensions missing from the proposed reforms is the absence of an elected parliament for Wales. If we are to move to unitary authorities, we need over-arching strategic authority at a Welsh level. Otherwise, the fragmentation of government will be carried through society. In future we will find that Wales has lost the ability as a country to determine its own future on a strategic level. That will become an increasingly important drag anchor as we move into European integration and Wales gets left behind on the periphery of the European Union.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: I begin by referring, if I may, to an omission from the Gracious Speech as it relates to my constituents and one of their
  284
  primary concerns. I refer to the debate about Welsh local government reorganisation and its impact on the national parks in Wales. There are 11 national parks in the United Kingdom and three of them are established in the principality of Wales. There is a consensus that there should be a change in the status of national park authorities. They control important planning functions, especially in a large section of my constituency in the Brecon Beacons park area.
  Ever since the production of "Fit for the Future", it has been recognised that legislation should be introduced to change the status of national parks. I believe that there is cross-party support for that change and also disappointment that, at the moment, there does not appear to be a slot in the timetable for that change to be undertaken. I am mindful of the fact that legislation is being introduced in a private Member's Bill in the House of Lords and that the Government may be intending to support that measure.
  I should be grateful to have clarification of that support. I understand that in another part of the House today, a Minister has said that that may be so. There has also been an indication that the Bill produced to deal with Welsh local government reorganisation will make some changes in the status of national parks. I emphasise that that is a matter of concern to my constituents and ask for some clarification—perhaps even today—in relation to that important issue.
  The debate has largely concentrated on the Government's proposals for local government reorganisation in Wales. I have made several representations to successive Secretaries of State concerning that issue. Today we heard of boundary changes that the Secretary of State is minded to propose. I welcome those boundary changes as they affect my constituency. It is well known that I have always opposed the proposal that the communities of Ystradgynlais and Tawe Uchaf should be removed from my constituency. I rose in the House to oppose it on virtually the first occasion on which it was made and whenever the matter has been debated since, I have informed successive Secretaries of State of the strength of local feeling concerning that issue.
  In a referendum held in the Ystradgynlais area with cross-party support and participation some 97 per cent. voted to remain within a Breconshire or Powys authority. I am therefore pleased that, having heard from delegations brought by me to see him, the Secretary of State has decided that Ystradgynlais and Tawe Uchaf should remain where their long-standing roots and sense of community lie.
  The position in relation to the second part of the announcement on boundaries is slightly different. For some time I have known that the community of Llanelly Hill was displeased about being part of Blaenau Gwent authority. I understand that that community has made strong representations to the Welsh Office to the effect that it wishes to be removed from the Blaenau Gwent area. I think that the community is divided on whether it wishes to be associated with a Monmouthshire authority or to return to the county local authority area of which it was part until 1974—namely, Breconshire. It has been my view that the Gillwern community should come to Breconshire. That being so, I welcome the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, although I recognise that some people in that community will be disappointed by it and would have wished to have been placed within a Monmouth local authority area.

  285
  Sadly, we could not debate this matter without further accusations of political gerrymandering being made in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is true."] Hon. Members say that it is true, but I find it extraordinary that accusations of political gerrymandering should be levelled at me. I suppose that if I had been in a position to welcome the original proposal to remove the Ystradgynlais and Tawe Uchaf communities from my constituency, I would have been accused of gerrymandering, because the communities are predominantly Labour communities—indeed, I think that every ward is represented by a Labour councillor.
  But my opposition to the move is also presented as being for political advantage or as gerrymandering. I remind the House that the community of Llanelly Hill, which is now to come within the local authority area that I represent, also has a Labour councillor. I hope, therefore, that there will be no accusation of political gerrymandering in respect of that community. In fairness to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), I should say that he made it clear that no such accusation could be made and I thank him for that.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney spoke eloquently about the position regarding his own local authority area and the proposal for a merged Merthyr Tydfil and Blaenau Gwent authority. There is a responsibility on all of us who represent Welsh constituencies to examine the sensitivities of each area. In the weeks ahead I shall certainly be looking specifically at the arguments that are presented in relation to the hon. Gentleman's area and to Blaenau Gwent, which, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged in his speech, I also know very well.
  I would say, however, that is it somewhat misleading to say that the communities of Rhymney and communities in Tredegar and Ebbw Vale are totally unconnected. We well know that Aneurin Bevan, when he represented the Ebbw Vale constituency, represented those three communities. I had the honour to fight my first failed electoral contest in Wales against his successor, Michael Foot, in my home town of Tredegar in 1974.
  I repeat that we need to examine the proposals sensitively. The proposal to put together Merthyr Tydfil and Blaenau Gwent involves two areas of roughly equal size. There may be some slight disproportion, but the two are roughly of equal size. How much greater would be the hon. Gentleman's anger if one of those areas were half the size of the other? That could be viewed along the lines of a takeover and that is one reason why I have strongly opposed the proposal that there should be a joint Brecon and Radnor authority—an alternative proposed by some to deal with the difficulties that we face in mid-Wales.
  I make it absolutely clear that, ever since local government reorganisation started to be considered, I have been a strong supporter of the proposition that there should be separate local authorities for Radnorshire, Breconshire and Montgomeryshire—a recognition of those three shire counties.
  I will not go over all the history of Radnorshire and Breconshire. We have heard on many occasions of the history of Montgomeryshire from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). There are considerations even more important than history—geography and demographic range and the huge size of a
  286
  Powys-wide authority. I have had to consider carefully the reasons why I am opposed to Powys. My opposition is based on a recognition of the extent to which people identify with the local community in which they live. One of the reasons—whatever the politics of the matter—why I argued so strongly for my constituents in Ystradgynlais and Tawe Uchaf was that they had that strong connection with Breconshire. Similarly, the strength of connection that people feel with Radnorshire and Montgomeryshire is important.
  I welcome the willingness of the Secretary of State to seek to change the proposals. I have examined carefully the model that he has produced, which he describes as the Powys model, but which is derided, in rather less grand language, by Opposition Members. The Secretary of State has shown that he is moving towards a recognition of the strength of local feeling. But real questions about that model remain and they are questions with which we shall have to deal during the debate.
  For example, what powers will be exercised at local level in Radnorshire, Montgomeryshire and Breconshire? Another issue that I consider to be crucial is that of financial control. Unless we find a proper method of financing devolved down to the Breconshire and the Radnorshire area, the devolution of power will be meaningless.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Let me take the hon. Gentleman back a paragraph. Does he accept that, during the previous general election campaign, at a public meeting in the Banwy valley in Montgomeryshire, the then Secretary of State for Wales gave an unqualified promise that Montgomeryshire would be a unitary authority? Does he also accept that he made out that Radnorshire would be a unitary authority? If either of those statements is true, may I ask the hon. Gentleman how he squares a broken promise with the present situation?
  Mr. Evans: In relation to the hon. and learned Gentleman's first proposition, he will understand that I was not in Montgomeryshire to hear those observations because I was busy fighting in the south. However, in relation to my own campaign, I have made it absolutely clear throughout, as I hope I have today, that I remain a committed supporter of separate unitary authorities within the areas that I represent.
  Mr. Carlile: In the general election campaign, the hon. Gentleman said that that would happen.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. and learned Gentleman says from a sedentary position that in the general election campaign I said that that would happen. I was a parliamentary candidate who was no part of the Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman is stretching the point if he says that I could have made any such claim. He knows that that could not be the case. All that I could do in the campaign was honestly to state my own position: that I did unequivocally then and that I have done unequivocally throughout the debate on the occasions when the hon. and learned Gentleman has been present to hear it.
  I return to the point that I was making before that intervention, which was on financial control. It is very important to have proper means of devolution of financial control to shire levels. It was perhaps inevitable that the Opposition parties would seek to attack the legitimacy of local government reorganisation in Wales on the basis of

  287
  their now familiar claim that we cannot deal with local government reorganisation unless we have a parliament for Wales. I unequivocally oppose the creation of a separate parliament for Wales.
  In my maiden speech I made it clear that the establishment of any such Welsh assembly would be a major challenge to the constitutional integrity of Wales as an integral part of the United Kingdom. The arguments today are the same old, tired, familiar arguments that we heard in 1979.
  It is said that an overweening bureaucracy of quangos runs Wales. We heard that again today. That is the very same argument that the Assembly for Wales campaign presented in 1979, after five years of Labour government. Of course, the result of the vote in Wales at the time was a resounding dismissal of the proposals that were put forward by all the Opposition parties combined. Only one political party in Wales argued against the establishment of a Welsh assembly in 1979—the Conservative party. The Conservative party's case was supported by more than 80 per cent. of the Welsh electorate.
  It has also been said that the matter is all to do with bureaucracy and quangos and that quangos are all run by Tories. It is as though the Labour party had never appointed a Labour supporter to a quango in Wales. My word, what short memories Opposition Members have. In the circumstances, I am bound to say that I would be hard put to come up with the name of any Conservative who was appointed to any quango in Wales until 1979, although, to the embarrassment of Opposition Members, we know the names of many of our political opponents who sit on public bodies in Wales today and did so during the 1980s. We heard the fact of the matter from the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson). There are not enough trade unionists, he said, on quangos in Wales. That is what Opposition Members think the matter is all about.
  Having made the point that I regret the omission of reference to reform of the national parks in the Gracious Speech, I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government on omitting from the Gracious Speech any reference to the creation of a divisive Welsh assembly which would be the first step in separating Wales from the United Kingdom.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: I will be brief because it has been a long debate and other right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. It is strange that we are debating Welsh local government when we have not yet heard the speech of the Secretary of State for Wales. That has made it rather difficult for us to debate the subject constructively, especially when we do not have a copy of the Bill.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will confirm that the long title of the Bill will not be drawn so tightly as to debar any amendments that will increase the number of unitary authorities beyond the 21 that he has in mind. I hope that he will give an assurance that the long title will not say "to reform local govvernment in Wales by establishing 21 authorities", because right hon. and hon. Members will not be able to increase the number by tabling amendments.
  As has been said, the Bill should not start in the House of Lords. I have always believed that there was a convention that only non-controversial Bills, and certainly not semi-constitutional or constitutional Bills, would be started in the House of Lords. However, mention of the
  288
  conventions of the constitution always falls on stony ground. Since 1979, the Government have ridden roughshod over those conventions. They are not written down, but prople know what they are. The Government have taken a Leninist approach to the House of Commons and its conventions and they have ridden roughshod over them. One of the conventions is that such Bills should not be introduced in the House of Lords.
  Another convention of the constitution was that there was an attempt to keep some sort of political balance when appointments were made to quangos. Certainly, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) was Secretary of State for Wales, he was too fair—he appointed too many people from other parties. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) was not in the House at the time. We bent over backwards to keep a balance in appointments to quangos in Wales. That is another unwritten convention over which the Conservative Government have ridden roughshod. It is one reason why there has been no consensus in government in Wales over the past 14 years.
  I was in the House when the previous Local Government Bill was introduced in 1972. That Bill related to the reorganisation of local government in both England and Wales. The two Ministers in charge of the Bill for England were Lord Walker, who was Secretary of State for the Environment, and the President of the Board of Trade, who was merely a lowly Under-Secretary at the Department of the Environment. I was a member of the Committee that dealt with the Bill.
  When we said that it would cost a lot of money, the Government shook their head in exactly the same way as the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister of State were shaking their heads earlier when Labour Members said that this will cost a lot of money. It will cost a lot of money in redundancy payments, index-linked pensions, reorganisation, closing down some buildings, construction of new buildings, moving computers and all the paraphernalia of change.
  The taxpayer about whom we hear so often from Conservative Members will have to pay. The income tax payer, the council tax payer and the VAT taxpayer will have to pay for another attempt by the Conservative Government to reorganise local government in Wales. However, they should leave it alone. I do not know why the Government—and, certainly, the ideologues from 1979 onwards—are obsessed with local government. They simply cannot cope with local government. They do not want it. They want to centralise economic authority—it is almost bureaucratic centralism in the case of Wales. They simply do not like local government and cannot cope with it.
  Mr. Richards: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if the Labour party's policy had been implemented after the general election, all the costs that he has referred to as being unnecessary and unwarranted would have been incurred because it was the Labour party's policy to have unitary authorities in Wales?
  Mr. Davies: Our policy is clear. It is to reorganise government in Wales and create a parliament. In 1979, there were deep divisions in the Labour party. If we mentioned the word "parliament", there were all sorts of problems, so we devised the rather odd word "assembly".

  289
  The consensus has moved on and there is general agreement in Wales. If Conservative Members believe that, simply because a referendum was lost in 1979, the position is the same today, they do not know what is going on in Wales. Having watched the centralism that has gone on in economic policy and in the government of Wales since 1979, the people of Wales have no doubt at all about who would vote for a parliament. Within the context of establishing a parliament, we would establish unitary authorities.
  We all agree that unitary authorities are a good thing. However, at some stage—perhaps not now, but during debates on the Bill—we must address the question of checks and balances on unitary authorities. In the present system—in my area it is Dyfed county council and Llanelli borough council, Carmarthen district council and the district councils in Pembrokeshire and Cardiganshire—there is a check and a balance, albeit not very sophisticated. In relation to planning matters, for instance, one authority deals with housing and planning; another deals with highways. Quite often, that check and balance prevent the abuse of power.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) mentioned Germany. How do we create checks and balances when all that we have are powerful unitary authorities? For example, local authorities are often able to give themselves planning permission and the Secretary of State is not interested and does not want to call the matter in. How do we create checks and balances when there are no elections for four years? If one third of a council retires and there are further elections, that may provide a check and a balance, but we have to address our minds to the creation of the large and powerful unitary authorities to which we agreed. Where is the check? Where is the balance?
  Planning law is the last area in British jurisprudence where there is very little rule of law. There are plenty of circulars and plenty of statutes, but practically anything goes in terms of planning decisions. Perhaps that will have to be dealt with in some Committee other than that which deals with the Bill.
  I shall now mention my constituency. In 1972 the then Conservative Government decided to abolish Carmarthenshire, which was old-fashioned and which they did not want any more. It was abolished in 1972 and they created Dyfed. Dyfed has worked quite well. It was not the historical area of Dyfed—they got their history wrong there, but one does not expect a Conservative Government to understand Welsh history and the history of areas like mine.
  When the Government abolished Carmarthenshire they abolished the old Llanelli borough council, which covered the town of Llanelli. The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) knows the region well. They also abolished Llanelli rural district council, which covered the old anthracite mining areas of the Gwendraed valley. There was a reason for those two councils, because they related to the economic tradition and the economic activities in the area. They abolished Burry port urban district council and the old borough of Kidwelly, which had a long history. They abolished them all. I do not know why. Local government has not necessarily improved as a
  290
  result and I do not know whether it is cheaper as a result; but there we are, they abolished about four councils in my constituency.
  Now the Government are bringing back the county of Carmarthenshire and abolishing Dyfed. They will now abolish the sole remaining council in Llanelli—Llanelli borough council, which covers the old areas of the town, the Gwendraed valley, Burry Port and Kidwelly. Llanelli will be left without any councils, apart from the community councils. Although I do not denigrate them, I do not consider that to be a satisfactory situation for an area with the traditions, history, spirit and sense of community that Llanelli has.
  I have to ask myself, what have we done? What have two Conservative Governments got against Llanelli that from 1972 onwards and in 1993 they wipe out one council after the other? Will the Secretary of State tell us why—if not in his winding-up speech, perhaps later?
  Mr. Richards: Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to tell the House that in those years Llanelli borough council discharged its duties and responsibilities impartially and fairly to all?
  Mr. Davies: Llanelli borough council does a reasonably good job, as do most councils in Wales, in difficult circumstances, with all the constraints that the Government place upon local authorities. It is easy to find mistakes and easy to criticise local councillors who do a difficult job—much more difficult, in many ways, than that of a Member of Parliament. Why was it necessary for Conservative Governments from 1972 to 1993, to wipe out practically all the local authorities in my constituency?
  We will see what happens in the Committee stage of the Bill. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to assure me that it will be possible to increase the number of authorities and that the figure 21 will not be written on to a tablet of stone so that we are unable to amend it.
  The Government should have introduced a Welsh assembly and a Welsh parliament, with the metropolitan authorities underneath. They do not wish to do so and they will make another botched job of Welsh local government reorganisation.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: As a councillor who served during the previous reorganisation, I know exactly what the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) means. It is a pity that some of the same mistakes are being repeated. Central Government have consistently failed to understand the importance, the stature and the status of local authorities—more's the pity.
  This Government of a million mistakes is about to make another. Having completely fouled up over the poss tax fiasco, the Tories are rushing into an ill-thought-out restructuring which will not last. These proposals do not meet the needs of Scotland's local government. They do not mirror local communities, nor do they conform with the wishes of the Scottish people. This is a rushed reorganisation which no one wants and with which no one has identified. It could, and should, have been so very different. I must ask why this is happening against the wishes of the people and in such a rushed and hassled fashion. The Government have set impossible timetables and imposed their gerrymandered proposals. This is a

  291
  Government of haste and waste, rushing proposals through, and throwing money at them that would be better spent on providing local government services.
  Many of the boundaries have no basis in local communities. One authority is split by the Firth of Forth, another by a land corridor and another by the Lammermuir hills—a geographical fact that the Government seem not to have noticed. The proposal for the highlands will create a local authority that is geographically larger than Wales. Whatever kind of government that is, it is certainly not local. There is no sense in the proposals. That is especially true because there has been no real local participation in them.
  England gets a commission and a budget of £12 million. All we get is a botched scheme that will not last precisely because it does not reflect the reality of the Scottish communities which it is supposedly designed to serve. Because of that, the Government's proposals are fatally flawed.
  The Secretary of State has said:
  "Parliament will decide the boundaries".
  But using the lottery of amendments in Committee and on Report is surely the worst way to approach an issue that is fundamental to the success or failure of the changes. The Secretary of State was actually hinting to his Back Benchers that, if they moved in the right direction, they might get some concessions. I hope that the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) takes the hint. I am sure that the people of Kincardineshire will welcome it if he takes advantage of such an offer. However, I regret that the Secretary of State's offer will probably not extend beyond the Conservative Benches.
  The truth is that the people of Scotland and the nature of our communities should decide the boundaries, not the Government, through diktat or some sort of lottery by amendment in Committee and on Report. The Scottish people should have been consulted properly and at length. As I said, England gets a commission and a budget of £12 million, but we get gerrymandering, and it is not good enough.
  On the size of the authorities, may I draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the report of the Rowntree Foundation entitled "The impact of population size on local authority costs and effectiveness", dated June 1993. From studying England, the report concluded:
  "Evidence does not suggest a straightforward and consistent link between population size and cost and/or effectiveness … There are some statistical links between population size and cost and/or effectiveness … but such links can point either way".
  The foundation found that, on housing, there was
  "a tendency for smaller authorities to be more effective",
  whereas in education a
  "consistent if weak link suggests that population size influences both costs and performance of services".
  The main finding in the report was that
  "such links can point either way".
  The report also points out that there is no perfect size for the delivery of local government services. Therefore, if, within reason, the size of the authority is not crucial, we are free to concentrate on relating councils to established local communities. The Government's failure to do this is an irrecoverable error.
  We are about to see an unnecessary period of dislocation and disruption in a local government system which provides a vast range of high quality essential daily services to every family and individual in Scotland. In addition to parallel authorities, staff changes, property
  292
  transfers and the other disruptions that we have seen in the past, the Government are adding the extra destabilising burdens of compulsory competitive tendering and service provision changes.
  The reorganisation is not the only major change facing councils and council staff. Devolved school management, school development planning, and five to 14-year-old development programmes are all happening at the same time as community care, reform of the police service and the extension of CCT. All those changes are central Government measures which have been heaped upon local authorities. The Government have a lot to answer for in their attitude towards our local authorities.
  The Government claim that there will be simplicity in the new system, but that is simply not so. There is an inbuilt recipe for confusion in their proposals. The Government are replacing a two-tier system with a multi-tier system containing confused responsibilities, and a reduction in the numbers of elected councillors to preside over the changes.
  There will be 28 new councils, of differing sizes, while the size of the police and fire services will remain at their regional levels; and who knows what size the water boards will be? To that will be added new joint boards of all sizes. It is a patchwork quilt of a system in the making.
  There is a problem of democracy at the heart of these proposals, which will leave Scotland with the lowest proportion of elected representatives per head of population in western Europe. That is what the Government are doing to us. Fewer councillors allied to more responsibility can only mean an increase in work loads for the new system, and it will be hit with problems at the most vulnerable settling-in period.
  There has been no mention of a timetable for CCT, but it was mentioned in the Queen's Speech. The White Paper speaks about the
  "need to avoid overloading the management of Councils during the transitional period."
  What do the Government intend to do, because CCT will hit those councils when they are at their most vulnerable?
  In conclusion—[Interruption.] I am tempted to continue, because there is a message that Conservatives should hear.
  Scotland will be run by a series of non-elected, non-accountable quangos, which are the opposite of democracy. That is what the Government are forcing on the Scottish people, and that is why they have been rejected by them. Under these proposals, even children's panels will be herded off to another non-elected quango appointed by the Secretary of State, which no doubt will be packed by his cronies. That is the way the Tories run Scotland. They cannot get elected, so they do it by back-door, undemocratic methods.
  The Government's proposals to hive off Scotland's water services to quangos is entirely unacceptable—no one wants it or supports it. It illustrates the arrogance of the Government towards the people of Scotland. The water boards are a paving measure towards eventual privatisation. The out-of-touch Government are wrong about the issue, which the Secretary of State avoided mentioning in his speech. He may hide, but he will have to come out into the open and explain what the Government will do about it.
  This is not an enabling reform; it is a disabling one. It is a blatant attack on local government and local democracy, and it is, quite simply, a mistake.
  9.23 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: We got off to a good start this afternoon when we had the farcical situation of the Secretary of State for Scotland making a statement on behalf of an English Member of Parliament who happens to be the Secretary of State for Wales. That statement clearly illustrated to us all what we have come to understand over recent months—that the process of local government reform in Wales has been an absolute shambles.
  It is clear that the introduction of the reforms to Wales will be delayed. That represents intense embarrassment for the Government and the complete humiliation of the Secretary of State. That delay is due to the failure of the right hon. Gentleman to get agreement in Cabinet to present the Bill first to the House. The right hon. Gentleman and his Cabinet colleagues are aware that the timetable for the Bill is now unpredictable and that therefore the Secretary of State is unable to guarantee the introduction of the new authorities by 1995 as promised.
  The problem is that Wales is now paying the price for the fact that the Secretary of State is an outrider in the Cabinet. He lacks influence and the confidence of his colleagues. As a result, two precedents have been created. First, a controversial Bill, which undoubtedly affects the constitution of Wales, will be presented first to the House of Lords. That will encourage opposition and will result in a lengthy and detailed examination of the Bill in this House and in the other place. I do not believe that the cause of local government in Wales will be served by the process to be followed in the next 12 months.
  Today we have also witnessed the extraordinary precedent of a statement being presented at the conclusion of a debate. If the Secretary of State had an announcement to make about the timetable for the legislation, I should have thought that there was some logic—we attempted to press the Secretary of State to understand this—in him intervening at the start of the debate to say just that. We have listened to the contributions from the Front-Bench spokesmen and have sat here for more than six hours. At no time, however, has the Secretary of State attempted to intervene, despite our encouragement, to make his intentions clear. It is a matter of great regret that he did not do so.
  It is also a matter of regret to me that the Secretary of State has not yet come to realise that there is a large measure of agreement in Wales on the reform of local government. I do not understand why on earth the Secretary of State is not prepared to consult and, on the basis of that consultation, to work with the existing consensus. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) stressed that point. What on earth are the Government afraid of? Why is the Secretary of State frightened to consult and to work on the basis of consensus?
  What the debate has emphatically demonstrated is that the Government's proposals for local government reform in Scotland and Wales will not command any support from the people of those nations. They are also overwhelmingly rejected by the majority of Members of Parliament who represent constituencies in those countries.
  If the legislation reaches the statute book, it will serve the interests of the Tory party, at the whim of a Government with no mandate in Scotland and Wales. It will be voted for by hon. Members who represent English
  294
  constituencies who have neither sought nor received votes from the people who will be exclusively affected by the proposed changes.
  Those changes have nothing to do with improving local government. They are not designed to foster civic pride nor to enhance the sense of community. They are not intended to improve the quality and range of public services. Since they are devoid of public or popular support, they are nothing to do with improving or extending the democratic process in Scotland and Wales. If they will do anything, they will help to frustrate the legitimate aspirations of our two nations for greater control of our own affairs. The proposals run counter to all the tides of politics, public affairs and government, not only in Britain but in the whole of western Europe. They will therefore be met with robust and unremitting opposition when the Bills are eventually presented to the House.
  Of greatest concern to those of us who value the democratic process is that the proposals are solely for Tory party political interests. It speaks volumes for the Tory party and its representatives in Parliament that they will put their names and, ultimately, their votes to a process that is at best gerrymandering and at worst corruption.
  It is broadly agreed in Wales that the existing system of local government needs reform. The system itself is a result of reform foisted on Wales in 1974 by a Tory Government who would not listen and insisted that the way forward was not by seeking consent but by centralist prescription. It is now the height of cynicism for the Government to use their past failures as an excuse to meddle further in the affairs of Wales when they have neither a mandate nor a consensus and when their guiding principle is nothing but a shabby attempt to shore up the slender majorities of the remaining Tory Members in Wales.
  Both the Secretary of State and his predecessor have made much of the fact that there is broad agreement in Wales for the creation of unitary authorities and that they have consulted widely. That assertion is untrue and disreputable, and the Secretary of State knows it. At the last election the Opposition parties in Wales were united in advocating reorganisation and in a determination that the most important reform of government in Wales was to democratise the Welsh Office. Without an all-Wales elected body to provide a co-ordinating framework, it is impossible to construct a system of unitary authorities that can reflect the variety of natural communities in Wales while ensuring that services such as education, social services, transport and planning are effectively delivered and co-ordinated.
  If the Secretary of State has listened to the answers to the questions that he has asked, he will know that. The overwhelming majority of parliamentarians and, almost without exception, the whole of local government in Wales have told him that, but he knows that the Tory party can never concede to Wales greater control over its own affairs.
  The Conservative party is now in terminal decline in Wales, which is why we have seen the disgraceful manipulations of the quango system referred to devastatingly by my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson). It is only by the nepotism of a system that can parachute into public office people who would never be elected that the Tory party can hope to retain an influence over our public affairs.
  The events of the past 14 years in public life in Wales give the clearest indication of the arrogance and contempt

  295
  shown to Wales by successive Conservative Governments. The democratic and accountable public sector—elected local government—has seen its powers limited and its resources cut. From 55 per cent. in 1979, local government expenditure has fallen as a percentage of total Welsh Office spend to 45 per cent. in the current financial year.
  At the same time, there has been an explosion in the number, power and influence of quangos. They have doubled in number from 40 in 1979 to 80 in 1993, and there will be more to come as our health and education services are taken further out of public control. In cash terms, there has been a 246 per cent. increase in quango expenditure from 1979 and quangos now account for one third of Welsh Office expenditure.
  Mr. Redwood: If people, in a free vote, decide that their school should be differently governed and that their governors should then have more powers and more direct control over the budget, how is that less democratic than the system that the hon. Gentleman recommends? Surely that is the very essence of truly local democracy.
  Mr. Davies: I trust two things—first, that the Secretary of State and his colleague, the Minister of State with responsibility for education, will be even-handed in their treatment of education in Wales and ensure that local authorities and schools that decide to remain in the public sector will be treated on the same basis as those which decide to opt out; and, secondly, that the Secretary of State will recognise decisions taken by local government and by individual schools to remain in the public sector, as undoubtedly they will increasingly do.
  The nepotism is bad enough, but in Welsh politics the picture is even more corrupt. As Wales has voted more solidly anti-Tory, the Tory influence has been extended by patronage. In the county council elections in 1993, the Tory party managed to win 21 of the 502 seats available. If the present local government plans go through, for the first time there will be more appointed quango members —1,400—than elected local authority members—1,150. I remind the Secretary of State, since he is proud of his 100 per cent. rating as an unreconstructed Thatcherite, of what his mentor said about the matter in 1980. Referring to quangos, she said:
  "There will always be pressure for new bodies. We shall be robust in resisting them."
  We know what the present Prime Minister thinks about the present Secretary of State for Wales. The Secretary of State would be well advised to stay out of handbag range of the Prime Minister's predecessor.
  Of course, we have not heard a defence of the local government changes. No one has argued that they will provide better local services or that the new authorities will be more identifiable with the communities that they serve. If that is true, when the Secretary of State decides to take Coychurch out of the proposed Vale of Glamorgan, how can he decide to leave in the communities of St. Brides, Ewenny and Wick? In public referendums, those areas had turnouts of more than 75 per cent. Each community had a positive vote of 85 per cent. to remain with Bridgend and the borough of Ogwr. What price democracy? What price can there be?
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: No. I am sorry, but if the hon. Gentleman had wanted to make a speech, he should have done as I
  296
  have done and remained in the Chamber since the start of the debate. I have no doubt that, if he had risen, he would have been called to speak.
  Last Friday, the Secretary of State had the chance in the Western Mail to defend his proposals. In an article quaintly described as "John Redwood outlining his vision for the future", he said not one word about the new councils. His defence of his refusal to acknowledge the overwhelming case for an assembly was contained in one small paragraph. He said:
  "They want to charge you extra tax for the privilege of being Welsh."
  No one has suggested that extra tax will be paid, but I will not take that criticism from a Tory party that was re-elected last year on the basis of lies and deception about its proposals for tax increases. The party which gave us VAT, extra VAT to pay for the poll tax, extra VAT on fuel to meet the spending deficit, and an extra £8·50 for each family from next April is in no position to lecture anybody about tax increases.
  The Secretary of State went on to say:
  "They want to spend more of the money on bureaucracy".
  Last week the right hon. Gentleman caused private panic in the Tory party and a public rebuke because he drew attention to the unique ability of the Tory party to do just that. We have a new system of government in Wales. The Secretary of State does not make speeches but calls representatives of the press and gets his press officer to read them a handout.
  It makes interesting reading. It starts:
  "I am a child of the National Health Service."
  We know that the Prime Minister questions the Secretary of State's parentage, and I am sure that the Secretary of State is getting his retaliation in, but he shows great vision. He goes on to say:
  "The task before us is to create a Health Service for the next century".
  That is startling. It is 1993. What does he think the task before us is—to create it for the 19th century? He continues:
  "There … is a restlessness among some of the medical staff about the number of men in grey suits".
  I thought that it was the men in white coats who were causing problems in the Tory party. The men in grey suits have seen, as a direct result of the reforms of the Tory party, a 262 per cent. increase in their number and a 900 per cent. increase in their salaries. The Secretary of State is in no position to lecture us about an increase in bureaucracy.
  The Secretary of State showed remarkable insight. He went on to say:
  "The doctor and nurse, all the clinical staff, are there as the most important people dealing with the patients."
  That is reassuring. He concludes:
  "Some will say my view is too simple minded".
  I think that he will find a measure of agreement on that.
  The problem facing the Secretary of State is an inheritance from his predecessor. There is no clear vision and no understanding of why and how local government should be reformed. They have fallen between the trap of a larger number of smaller authorities and a smaller number of large authorities.
  I refer the Secretary of State to some advice that was reported in The Independent this morning. It was advice given to the Local Government Commission in England: "Unitary authorities"—I commend this to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans)—
  "covering either a very large area or a very small population will need a specially strong justification".

  297
  That advice was based, I believe, on the advice of Kate Jennings, who worked in the Minister's private office at the Department of the Environment. He has now taken her to the Welsh Office. I suggest that he has a long chat with his adviser, and if he follows the advice that she is giving his colleagues in England he will drop the reforms and drop them now.
  9.42 pm
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): It is a new idea for a wind-up speech from the Opposition to take the best lines from the Secretary of State's speech that they are attacking, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) for giving them even more air time than they have had in the past few days.
  Otherwise, it was a load of huffing and puffing from the hon. Gentleman that amounted to nothing. I can assure him that the Cabinet is fully aware of the needs of Wales and that, when it comes to the big issues, Wales is looked after, as it was with assisted area status, as it has been with objectives 2 and 5 status and as it will be in the Budget and the public expenditure statement. I tell the hon. Gentleman to stop huffing about those things and to watch what is going on, because there is good news for Wales in many of the statements that I deliver.
  As for the hon. Gentleman's synthetic anger about the issues before the House, I ensured that all Members from Wales had all the important things that they needed for today's debate about boundaries and about the number of councillors. I shall come to the issue about which I did not release information, on timing.
  Local government matters. It is because the Government believe that it matters that they are introducing Bills to reorganise the structure of local government in Wales and Scotland—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Hon. Members know full well the rules of the House and it would seem that the Secretary of State is not giving way.
  Mr. Redwood: Had the House left me a little time, I would give way. I normally do so, but there is not enough time if I wish to tell the House what it needs to know.
  The Government are introducing Bills to reorganise the structure of local government in Wales and Scotland and are well advanced in reorganising the structure of local government in England. Most of the debate in the past two and a half years has focused on boundaries, and the boundaries issue has certainly dominated my postbag in recent months. I wish to establish a structure of local government in Wales that, as far as possible, is based on the traditional areas with which people identify.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During a debate that was intended to be about Scottish and Welsh local government reform, three Conservative Back Benchers from English constituencies have spent over one hour talking about issues which have nothing to do with the subject. As a result of that, some hon. Members from Scotland and from Wales were not called to speak. In those circumstances, is it not right that a Minister should give way to answer a short question on a factual issue which would take 30 seconds?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Members to whom the hon. Gentleman refers had been out of order, they would have been stopped by the Chair. I have to inform the hon. Gentleman that although certain subjects are raised for debate each day, they are not exclusive. It is perfectly in order to raise other subjects, provided that they relate to the Queen's Speech.
  Mr. Redwood: If hon. Members let me tell them what they wish to know, I will give way if time permits.
  In the old counties of Dyfed and Newport, for example, precise boundaries seem to be no longer an issue.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: On a different point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I said earlier that three hon. Members representing English constituencies had spoken during the debate. One of those hon. Members, the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), is here. Is not the convention of the House that hon. Members who speak in a debate should be in the Chamber for the winding-up speech? Where are the other two hon. Members?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Redwood: People in Wales would like to hear what I have to say. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will now permit me to continue.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.
  Notice being taken that strangers were present, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of Strangers from House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Richards(seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Members of the House and the people of Wales were expecting an important speech from the Secretary of State for Wales this evening. That has been denied them by a disgraceful tactic by a Liberal Democrat Member, a part-time Member of the House known as the moonlighting Member for Montgomery. When will the people of Wales and Members of Parliament hear the important statement by the Secretary of State for Wales on the reform of local government?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair, but I inform the hon. Member that if the Secretary of State still has the floor at 10 o'clock, it will be open to him to continue his speech when the debate is resumed tomorrow, if he chooses to do so.
  Mr. Riddick(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Throughout the debate, we have heard demands from Opposition Members that the Secretary of State for Wales give details tonight of the changes that he intends to make to some of the boundaries. Is it not a disgrace that the Liberal Democrats have ensured that that cannot take place?
  On a further point of order—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already said that the matter is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Riddick: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not a point of order, so it cannot be continued.
  Mr. Riddick: On a completely new point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the last Session of Parliament, during the passage of the Railways Bill through the House, we saw some disgraceful scenes when Labour Opposition Members disrupted Parliament. We are now seeing Liberal Democrat Members disrupting this Session of Parliament. What can you do from the Chair to stop such disruptive tactics?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is no more raising a point of order now than he was earlier. It is not a point of order for the Chair. It may be a point of substance, but it is not a point of order.
  The House having divided: Ayes 10, Noes 91.

  Division No. 1]

  [9.46 pm

  AYES

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Salmond, Alex

  Dafis, Cynog

  Welsh, Andrew

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Marek, Dr John

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones and

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Mr. James Wallace.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Ainger, Nick

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Gunnell, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Hain, Peter

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Hanson, David

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Home Robertson, John

  Bates, Michael

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Beggs, Roy

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Bowis, John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Congdon, David

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Cousins, Jim

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lewis, Terry

  Dewar, Donald

  McCartney, Ian

  Dicks, Terry

  McLeish, Henry

  Dixon, Don

  McMaster, Gordon

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Mahon, Alice

  Etherington, Bill

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Evans, David(Welwyn Hatfield)

  Maxton, John

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Meale, Alan

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Murphy, Paul

  Flynn, Paul

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Foulkes, George

  O'Neill, Martin

  French, Douglas

  Paice, James

  Fry, Peter

  Pike, Peter L.

  Fyfe, Maria

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gallie, Phil

  Richards, Rod

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Riddick, Graham

  300

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Streeter, Gary

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Thomason, Roy

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wilson, Brian

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wood, Timothy

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

  Stephen, Michael

  Mr. Michael Brown.

  Stewart, Allan

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. While the rule remains as it is, the hon. and learned Gentleman must wear the proper headgear.
  Mr. Carlile(seated and covered): On a point or order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not right that the debate has been continued—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not expect the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to behave in quite such a foolish fashion.
  Mr. Carlile: The debate has now been going for almost seven and a half hours. Can you, Madam Deputy Speaker, confirm that it would have been in order for the Secretary of State for Wales, or a Minister, to make an announcement at any time on whether the elections to the new authorities would be postponed for a year?
  Secondly, do you, Madam Deputy Speaker, believe that it is in order that an announcement has been leaked to the press that tells us that those elections will be delayed for a year?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: So far everything has been in order.
  Mr. Redwood: It is a great pity that we have had this interruption. I will give the House the news that it wanted, as I see that my time is now up. I will propose that we delay implementation by one year in order to give sufficient parliamentary time so that a good debate can be had—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  Local Government (Scotland and Wales)

    HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION
    Ordered,
    That Ms Janet Anderson be appointed a member of the House of Commons Commission in place of Mr. Peter Shore under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

  Child Migrants
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  10 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) should delay for a moment while the Chamber is cleared. Will hon. Members please leave quietly?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue tonight about which I have long been concerned. This issue, which has concerned many hon. Members, relates to the migration of thousands of British children. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) hopes to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Like most people in this country, I was blissfully unaware until about a year ago that from 1618 until 1967 my country had exported about 150,000 children to various parts of the old empire including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Zimbabwe and the Caribbean. I learned of that policy when, a year ago last October, I met an Australian in Speaker's House who was attending a receiption on the eve of the rugby league world cup final between Great Britain and Australia.
  The woman concerned told me that her late father had been one of thousands of British child migrants who were exported to Australia. She said that she hoped to learn about his ancestry and hers while she was in Britain—someting denied to vast numbers of migrants for generations.
  I found what she told me astonishing. I also found it personally disturbing because, as the Minister is aware, prior to being elected to Parliament I worked in the social services. I began working in social work in 1968. Often I worked very closely with some of the agencies which, I discovered, had until only the previous year been involved in the export of British children in sometimes very questionable circumstances.
  I want to make it clear at the outset that it is not in any way my intention tonight to attack those who currently run those agencies. I will obviously refer to the impact of schemes operated by a range of agencies including the Catholic Child Welfare Council, Barnardo's, the National Children's Home and the Salvation Army. However I, perhaps more than most hon. Members, am very conscious of the important contemporary work of those organisations and others. I am also very much aware that the whole story of British child care policy is one of subsequent generations viewing with concern and sometimes horror what was deemed good practice by our predecessors.
  I am not here tonight to rake over elements of our history which some would say are best forgotten. I want to ask this Government to address seriously their responsibilities to those who, as we speak, face every day the emotional and sometimes physical implications of having been child migrants.
  A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of meeting in the House of Commons a former child migrant from Australia who is trying to repair the appalling damage that has been caused by this country's migration policies. He broke down as he told me how he was taken from his mother and
  302
  family and had his name and religion changed. He has only recently had an operation on his ear to rectify a condition arising from physical injuries received while under what was deemed the care of one of the agency families concerned. He is fortunate to have an occupation that now pays him reasonably well as he has had to spend about £30,000 travelling to and from Britain making inquiries about his own identity, with the invaluable help of the Child Migrants Trust. He eventually found out who his mother was, but sadly experienced that of so many others with similar backgrounds, and found out that his mother had died not long before he managed to establish who she was.
  I had that man's case in mind when I raised the issue of child migration at Prime Minister's Question Time recently. The House will recall that the Prime Minister replied:
  "Any concern about the treatment of the children in another country is essentially a matter for the authorities in that country."—[Official Report, 2 November 1993; Vol. 231, c. 147.]
  The former migrant that I met is a British citizen—one of hundreds and possibly thousands of former migrants who are British and for whom the British Government have a past, present and future responsibility.
  Many of the former migrants, especially in Australia, have retained their British citizenship, as there was no provision made for child migrants sent there in the post-war period to automatically assume Australian citizenship. Many do not realise that they are still British and often find out only when their application for an Australian passport is rejected. It was not the policy to provide migrants with passports or full birth certificates when they left Britain and many of my age and older still lack a full birth certificate and the most basic of information about their real identity or personal background.
  I do not have the time to do justice to a summary of the history of the child migrant scheme, but I urge the Minister to study some of the literature concerning the scheme and especially the detailed research in the book "Lost Children of the Empire" by Philip Bean and Joy Melville, first published in 1989. They made it clear that while migrants were usually called orphans, the majority were not and were more often abandoned, illegitimate or from poor or broken homes. When they were admitted to care, sometimes temporarily, their parents usually had no idea that they were likely to be dispatched to far outposts of the empire. Children were frequently told that their parents were dead and in many instances it was clear they were not.
  Bean and Melville examined the reasons for continued existence of the schemes over and above the questionable argument that it was in the best interests of the children concerned. It is clear from their research that the reasons ranged from it being cheaper than keeping them in Britain to a deliberate attempt to populate the empire with what was deemed good British—that is, white—stock. Their book also alleges that the religious affiliations of certain concerned agencies was an important factor in some of the arrangements made. On Canadian migration, they state:
  "Ontario wanted as many non-Catholics as possible to settle there, conscious of catholic expansion in adjacent Quebec and Quebec, eyeing the influx, called in turn for child Catholics"
  Whatever the motivation, it is clear that thousands of child migrants were grossly exploited as cheap, virtual slave labour and were emotionally, physically and

  303
  frequently sexually abused. The Bean and Melville study highlights how checks on the care and treatment of migrants were minimal and usually non-existent.
  We know that some of the worst treatment of migrants has taken place since the last world war—in the lifetime of most hon. Members present. It is of the utmost concern that the powers of successive Governments in the Children Act 1948 to control the immigration arrangements of voluntary organisations were not used. It was not until the implementation of the Child Care Act 1980 in January 1982 that the consent of the Secretary of State was required before agencies could send children abroad.
  In my recent question to the Prime Minister, I referred to the fact that, in a couple of weeks' time, a British woman, Mrs. Margaret Humphreys, will become the first British citizen—apart from members of the royal family—to receive the prestigious Order of Australia medal. She is to receive that award because of Australia's recognition of the unique role that she has played in helping migrants to be reunited with their former families and to adjust to the trauma that they have experienced.
  Mrs. Humphreys established the Child Migrants Trust in 1987 after uncovering the extent to which migrants exported under the scheme were desperately seeking help. Clearly, many of the migrants felt unable to seek such help from the agencies that originally exported them because of the very damaging experience that had resulted. I pay sincere tribute to Margaret Humphreys and her colleagues at the Child Migrants Trust for their work.
  I also feel that the country owes a great debt to the Nottinghamshire county council social services department for substantially funding the work of the trust. I pay tribute to the chairman of the social services committee, Councillor Joan Taylor, and to the support given to her by her Conservative shadow chair, Councillor Brenda Borrett and the Liberal Democrat spokeswoman on the committee, Councillor Sue Bennett. The Minister is well aware that this is not a party issue. There is all-party support in the House, as in Nottingham, for the proposition that we should attempt to address the issue seriously.
  I am grateful that the holding of this Adjournment debate has resulted in the trust being visited for the first time in six years by a representative of the Department of Health. I hope that an important consequence will be a substantial increase in the funding made available by the Government for the work of the trust. The current grant, although welcome, goes nowhere near to paying for even a small part of its very important work. I hope, too, that the Minister will tell me why his Department suggested in its press release of 24 August that the child migrant issue would be considered during the Secretary of State's recent visit to Australasia, when in subsequent parliamentary answers on 25 October and on 1 and 4 November, we have been told that that would not have been appropriate.
  Will the Minister comment, too, on the Government's obvious reluctance to make available to those concerned with rehabilitating migrants all the relevant records within his or other Departments or the agencies concerned? It has been put to me that the Government are reluctant to be more open and active on the matter because of their contacts at the very highest level with some of the voluntary organisations concerned, which fear the possible implications for their current activities and fund raising if more information were made public. I hope the Minister
  304
  agrees that it would be very wrong were such attitudes to prevent former child migrants from obtaining the information necessary to repair their lives.
  By an interesting coincidence, on 15 July—the day on which the BBC showed the first part of its drama documentary on the child migrant scheme, "The Leaving of Liverpool", which shocked and angered many people in Britain—the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was standing in the Chamber with the Prime Minister at his side, launching his White Paper on open government. If the Government are genuinely committed to open government, they will without delay establish a full public inquiry into the British child migrant scheme, surely one of the greatest scandals of our time.
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Paddy Tipping: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) for allowing me a few minutes.
  These important issues are not just history. Some argue that, as the events took place 20, 30 or 40 years ago, they can be forgotten. That clearly cannot be the case. The children who went abroad want to understand their history. They need to understand and make sense of their past and look forward to their future. Many families here in the United Kingdom still grieve about that past and it is important that some action should be taken. People are aging, memories are fading and records unfortunately are not being released.
  The Minister will know that on 18 May I came with representatives of the Child Migrant Trust to see his predecessor at the Department of Health, who undertook to have discussions with the child care charities involved in those activities.
  The present Minister wrote to me on 2 July to say that he shared the concerns of the trust, that there was an issue and that there would be speedy action. I hope that the Minister will not mind my reminding him that six months have passed since that initial meeting at the Department. I should be grateful if he would tell us what discussions there have been with the child care agencies involved.
  Many child migrants will not accept help from those former charities. They believe that the charities are in the dock and they accuse the charities. They will not take help from a party that they feel is implicated in events from which, although history, many people still bear the scars.
  It is important to fund the Child Care Trust adequately. I note the enormous help that the Australian Government have given the Child Migrants Trust. That organisation is extremely highly regarded in Australia and it would be fitting if it had similiar recognition here.
  The Government could help immediately by making sure that records are available. They could put pressure on the child care charities that have been involved. They could provide finance, as they have in the past. I believe that £45,000 has been made available from the Department of Health over recent years. However, the real funding for and the real commitment to the Child Migrants Trust has come from Nottinghamshire county council. Over the past seven years it has made almost £200,000 available to the trust. It really is time for action. It really is time for the Department of Health to match the commitment of the trust, its volunteers and Nottinghamshire county council because it

  305
  is vital that, for people to have a future, they must make sense of the past, and the Child Migrants Trust can ensure that.
  10.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on choosing to remind the House of the work of the British Child Migrants Trust and on drawing our attention to the problems of former child migrants. I also acknowledge the contribution by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping).
  Child emigration had its origins, as hon. Members know, in the latter part of the 19th century. At that time, it was mainly to Canada and linked to employment opportunities on farms and as domestic servants when industrialisation was depopulating rural areas in this country. In more modern times, Kingsley Fairbridge founded the Child Emigration Society with a vision in 1909 to bring future farmers to Rhodesia by, as he said,
  "shifting the orphanages of Britain to the shores of Greater Britain."
  His vision was that
  "little children would shed the bondage of bitter circumstances and stretch their legs and minds amid the thousands of interests of the farm."
  Western Australia presented the first opportunity to contribute to what he said was the problem of
  "how to combine the work of Child Rescue with that of Emigration".
  Churches and other voluntary and charitable organisations took up the idea and ran migration schemes approved by the Parliaments of the day. In the 1930s, the schemes flourished, perhaps partly because of the depression. It was accepted then that orphans or poor children around the age of 10 could go to the dominions, learn to farm and have a better chance of securing permanent employment and finding a decent life than if they remained in institutions in the home country.
  In Australia, there were about 1,000 applications for the 100 or so children who were leaving the farm schools each year. I stress that at the time the schemes were seen as opportunities and not as dumping grounds for unwanted children. Child emigration continued after the war and on into the late 1960s. I have no doubt that most of those involved in the church and voluntary organisations that ran the schemes had sincere motives and the best interests of the children in mind. No Government of any party at any time questioned the schemes.
  For most former child migrants, there is little doubt that their life chances were improved. It is certainly apparent that many, and perhaps most, children who emigrated over the years managed to settle well, flourished and led contented and successful lives. Indeed, many reached the top of their career trees in their new countries. But some did not prosper and, alas, it is clear that some suffered at the hands of those in whose care they were placed.
  Attention has recently been drawn to a darker side of the story, dramatically portrayed in the television film "The Leaving of Liverpool". Looking back over the last century, of course we can now say that it was clearly insufficient to have good intentions, and we now have the stories of cruelty and abuse related by some of those migrants.
  We now have a more civilised and caring framework for child welfare. The Children Act 1989 makes the welfare of
  306
  the child paramount. It reminds us that parents are the best people to bring up their children and requires local authorities to help parents bring up their children at home whenever possible. Most importantly, the child's voice must be heard when decisions about his or her future are being taken. The courts now have responsibility for approving the emigration of children in care.
  The United Nations convention on the rights of the child underlined those points. It is not sufficient to think what would be best for the child—children must have the right to say what they think about anything that affects them. Attitudes have changed and the law has changed to protect today's children from those aspects of the treatment of former child migrants which we now find distasteful. Our recent White Paper on adoption, coupled with current practice on inter-country adoption, takes that protection a stage further.
  Unfortunately, no law can eradicate all forms of abuse, as we know only too well from recent incidents in children's homes in this country, when children are supposedly in the care of local authorities. It is salutary to be reminded of what can happen today and what happened on occasions in those distant lands to which the children were sent. The abuses that occurred there are of course a matter for the authorities of the country concerned to investigate and take appropriate action. But there are ways in which authorities and agencies in this country can respond to some of the wishes of the migrants themselves. The Government's main concern now is to ensure that former child migrants who wish to make contact with their families are able to do so.
  Both hon. Gentlemen referred to the files. I have looked carefully at this issue. My officials have examined all the files on child migration kept in the Public Record Office in class MH 102 and those transferred from the Home Office. There are 122 such files. Fifty-one are already available at the Public Record Office under the 30-year rule for anyone to inspect. Another 15 are still subject to the normal 30-year limit. There is a third group of 56 files which are being held at the Public Record Office on extended closure under standard rules.
  It is unlikely that information in the third group of files could be of help to the Child Migrants Trust in its work of counselling former child migrants and tracing their origins.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bowis: I shall give way when I have completed this point.
  Nevertheless, the recent White Paper on open government encourages Departments to reconsider the need for extended closure of files. We have therefore looked again at all the files. My view is that 30 of the files could be opened now and I intend to ask my departmental records officer to seek the Lord Chancellor's approval for accelerated opening.
  I have also decided to recommend that the Child Migrants Trust be given privileged access to all 26 remaining files in this group held by the Public Record Office, subject to certain safeguards to ensure confidentiality for those who do not want their names to be known as former child migrants.
  That leaves the 15 files that have not yet reached the 30-year limit. By definition, they include matters relating to the final years of the scheme from 1964 to 1968. After

  307
  careful consideration I have decided to recommend the early opening now of 12 of the 15 former Home Office files. To ensure that there is no doubt or speculation regarding the remaining three, I have also decided to give privileged access to the British Child Migrants Trust to the remaining three, which refer to individual migrants.
  In that way, the British Child Migrants Trust will have access to all the files held at the Public Record Office or transferred from the Home Office. I hope that that significant step towards open government, while safeguarding the interest of private citizens, will be welcomed by the House and the migrants themselves.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to speak again. I thank him genuinely for his response tonight. I shall briefly mention one other subject that he may or may not want to touch on—the records that we know exist in certain voluntary agencies. Would it be possible, in the spirit of attempting to do something about that issue—which I believe he is—to obtain those documents through the Department of Health so that they are in the public domain, rather than leaving it to the Child Migrants Trust or to the individual child migrant to approach the agency concerned for the information that they require?
  Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to go a little further than it is in my power to go. I am sure that the organisations to which he referred will have heard his request that the records be passed to me and to my department. I hope that they will also have heard the lead that perhaps I have been able to give in terms of openness with those files, but it is on privileged access and we must protect the interests of individuals who may not wish their names to be known. I will leave it by saying that I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said and no doubt others outside the House will have heard, too.
  The Government support the work of the British Child Migrants Trust and the Australian Government support work in that country. Government funding for the current year is £25,000. Total funding has so far been £45,000. Like all funding for voluntary organisations, we expect the Child Migrants Trust to seek other funding sources and it has been most successful in doing just that. The Government grant currently contributes to about one third of its expenditure.
  308
  A further application for a three-year section 64 grant is now being considered, together with similar applications from many other voluntary organisations. The House would not expect me to give any specific funding commitment today either to the British Child Migrants Trust or to any other voluntary organisation working in that area, but I will of course take into account the views that were expressed by the hon. Member for Wakefield and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the visit to Australia by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I simply say that, although my right hon. Friend has taken a close interest in the problems of former child migrants, in that brief visit she did not need to mention the subject because it was a matter that I was raising directly with my opposite number in the Australian Government. Happily, as a result of that, we have agreement with the Australian Government that our officials can work together to seek co-operation and to further the work.
  Lastly, the hon. Gentleman rightly paid tribute to Margaret Humphreys on being awarded the Order of Australia medal. I join him in congratulating her on that. The hon. Gentleman referred to other organisations. Following his meeting with my predecessor, contact was made with other organisations in an attempt to get them working together with the trust, given all the problems that there may be in encouraging that to happen. Many of them, such as Barnardo's, the Children's Society, the Catholic Child Welfare Council, the National Children's Homes and Fairbridge have contributed to giving us all a much clearer understanding of the history of these schemes than we would otherwise have had.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the measured way in which he introduced the debate and for the way in which he clearly accepted the high standing of those organisations today. Nothing that we say today must undermine that in any way. Many former child migrants are grateful to those organisations for reuniting them with their families and their roots and that remains our closest wish as well.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

EDUCATION

  EC Education Council
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Education Council on 8 November.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministers first heard a presentation by the Russian Minister of Education, Mr. Tkachenko, on the reform of his country's education system. The Council then discussed issues relating to student mobility and access by students to higher education in the Community, and the Commission's recent Green Paper on the European dimension of education. No formal conclusions were reached in either case.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  EC Budget Council
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Budget Council on 15 November.

  Sir John Cope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 19 November at columns 4-6.

PRIME MINISTER

  Quotations
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the sources for his quotations from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) contained in his speech to the House on 18 November,Official Report, column 34.

  The Prime Minister
  The quotation from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott),"do you obey the law or not obey the law? We"—
  that is, the Labour party—
  "don't have any kind of firm principles in the Party of how we might deal with this problem"
  is from the New Socialist, November 1985; and the quotation that Labour is
  "going to repeal"—
  that is, the Government's trade union legislation—
  "all of it, there's no little bits you can keep … It all has to go"
  is from The Independent, 27 December 1989.

  Efficiency Unit
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the results of the study on civil service career management and succession planning carried out by the efficiency unit; and if he will make a statement.
  8
  The Prime Minister
  I am placing in the Library today a copy of the efficiency unit's report on career management and succession planning in the civil service. I am pleased to welcome its findings.

  The civil service is being restructured with departmental headquarters concentrating on policy making and the purchasing of services which increasingly are provided by agencies in government or on contract from the private sector. The systems for recruitment, appointment and career management of civil servants need to be matched to these changing tasks and responsibilities and the skills and qualities needed in the civil service in the future. At the same time, the Government agree with the need to preserve an impartial, non-political civil service recruited and promoted on merit.

  Within this framework, the Government accept that the systems for career management and succession planning should be made more open. The report finds that the evidence from the private sector is that most senior posts are filled from within. But new arrangements are needed to address in each case the question whether the post should be open to competition from outside.

  The report contains detailed recommendations about career management systems in individual departments on which there will now be consultation with those concerned. The report's proposals on how posts are filled and on the possibility of introducing more specific contract terms raise important issues which need further consideration. The Government will also be receiving early next year a report from the senior salaries review body on developing the existing performance pay arrangements which it will wish to take into account in reaching conclusions.

  In the light of this further work, the Government intend to announce in the spring their decisions on the recommendations in the report and to publish an implementation plan.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animal Procedures Committee
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has appointed a chairman of the Animal Procedures Committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I have appointed Professor Margaret Brazier, who is Professor of Law and Director of the Centre for Social Ethics and Policy at Manchester University, as chairman of the committee in succession to Lord Nathan.

  I should like to place on record my appreciation of the service that Lord Nathan has performed as chairman of the committee since 1990 and I am grateful to Professor Brazier for agreeing to take on the duties.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Review
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce the details of the accelerated programme of reviews of local government structure in England.
  9
  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today directed the Local Government Commission to begin reviews of the remaining shire counties on 13 December and to submit all reports on or before 31 December 1994.

  He also directed the commission to have regard to the revised policy guidance published on 2 November, and the revised procedure guidance, published today, in conducting these reviews. A copy of the procedure guidance has been placed in the Library of the House and additional copies are available in the Vote Office.

  We are giving the commission the flexibility it needs to achieve the demanding programme of work which we have set for it. We are not changing the nature of the process, which is enshrined in the legislation. But we are no longer setting prescriptive time limits for every stage of a review, so that the commission can proceed in each area on a time scale that meets local circumstances. We are, however, quite clear that the length of time allowed for public consultation must not be reduced below two months, as my right hon. Friend announced at the end of September.

  We are keen for the commission to submit a steady flow of reports from mid-1994. This will mean that within the wider timetable, individual county reviews will be phased. The commission has discussed a programme with the local authority associations, and today announced its intended sequence of county reviews. We endorse this programme. The table shows the dates by which initial proposals from groups of authorities or others should be submitted to the commission, and the dates when the Secretary of State expects to receive the final reports.

  Those areas in the first phase include the old second tranche reviews which had been suspended pending publication of revised guidance. They will now be restarted to allow local authorities and interested parties to look again at their initial submissions.

  The direction and the procedure guidance have been framed so as to allow solutions across shire county boundaries to be examined where these are the most sensible way forward. Some proposals of this kind have already been made, and others may follow. But we expect that in most cases it will not be necessary to look outside county areas to find structures on which local agreement can be reached.

  My right hon. Friend has already announced that he intends to direct the commission to look at the boundaries of metropolitan areas after it has completed the shire reviews. We anticipate that any boundary issues between the shire counties and the metropolitan areas will be examined as part of the wider metropolitan review. This will allow the commission to proceed swiftly with its current work programme.

  The announcement today means that the commission, local authorities and others can get on with the business of developing structural options which would deliver convenient and effective local government.

  Most hon. Members have already shown much interest in the review and will no doubt wish to work with the local authorities to help them reach agreement on the best structure for their area. We expect a local consensus on structure to be a promising starting point for the commission.
  10

  Proposed phasing for initial stage of review

  County

  Date initial representations due

  Target Date for final report

  Bedfordshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Cumbria

  Lancashire

  Leicestershire

  end February

  end July

  Berkshire

  Cheshire

  Devon

  Hampshire

  Kent

  Nottinghamshire

  Oxfordshire

  Staffordshire

  Suffolk

  end February

  end August

  Buckinghamshire

  Dorset

  Hereford and Worcester

  Norfolk

  Northamptonshire

  Surrey

  Wiltshire

  end March

  end September

  Essex

  Northumberland

  Warwickshire

  East Sussex

  West Sussex

  end April

  end October

  Cornwall

  Hertfordshire

  Shropshire

  end May

  end November

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the research commissioned by its Department earlier this year on the external costs and benefits of landfill and incineration of waste.

  Mr. Yeo
  We will be publishing a report tomorrow on "Externalities from Landfill and Incineration" by the Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE) and Warren Spring Laboratory. I have arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Library. The report will be available from HMSO.

  Environmental Guidance
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further guidance he intends to provide on the role of economic instruments to achieve environmental goals.

  Mr. Yeo
  We will be publishing tomorrow a booklet called "Making Markets Work for the Environment", which was produced by my Department. I have arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Library. The report will be available from HMSO.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Lebanon
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy regarding arms exports to Lebanon.
  11
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Applications for the exports of arms to Lebanon are considered on their merits in the light of prevailing circumstances. During the Lebanese civil war it was not our practice to licence the export of lethal equipment to Lebanon. The Government would at present be prepared to consider, on a case-by-case basis,12
  applications for the sale of arms to the Lebanese Government to help them re-establish their legitimate authority—provided that we were satisfied that the equipment supplied would not affect the regional military balance.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Budget Council, 22nd July: Attendance
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why, despite the provisions of Article 146 of the Treaty of Rome, which provides that the Council of Ministers "shall consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level authorised to commit the government of that Member State", the meeting of the Economic and Financial Council (ECOFIN) on 22nd July was attended by five Ministers and seven senior civil servants.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, at the Budget Council on 22nd July (not ECOFIN) only three member states were not represented by a Minister. Two Ministers were unable to attend at short notice for personal reasons.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for having interpreted on slightly different lines from my own the press release that was issued immediately afterwards. She put the non-ministerial attendance at three, but is she aware that my Question asked why there were any non-ministerial people there at all as the treaty itself provides that these Councils should be attended by Ministers?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that this Government make every effort to ensure that they are represented at ministerial level at all Councils, but it simply is not possible always for that to happen. On 22nd July the Dutch Minister was prevented from attending by a last minute family bereavement; the Italian Minister was no doubt busy in Italy; and the French Minister was taken ill. The underlying rule is that six Ministers must be present for a vote. In this case there were nine. New rules have been agreed and we are awaiting a full package of new rules. They will explicitly say that there must be six Ministers for a vote.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for missing the very first part of her Answer this afternoon. She will know that the Commission recently produced a document which is designed to cut unemployment in the Community by half by the year 2000. Can she give the House an assurance that when that is discussed in the Council of Ministers the Secretary of State will be present?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot believe that any Secretary of State would wish a
20
document of that importance to be discussed without him being present, but I shall draw the noble Lord's remarks to his attention.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when we talk about the democratic deficit we are always assured that Ministers representing the Government at these meetings are responsible to Parliament for what is decided and what is voted on. Will my noble friend give an assurance that Ministers will be representing the United Kingdom at the meetings in order that they may reply to questions and demands in Parliament in this country?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that Ministers always prefer to be present at these Councils, but the UK's negotiating objectives and the lines to take are decided at ministerial level before every Council meeting in case there should be some family reason why the actual Minister cannot attend and why perhaps a junior Minister has to attend in his or her place. But we always try to ensure that Ministers are representing us. If officials have to step into the breach, those officials must adhere to the decisions arrived at by Ministers prior to the Council meeting.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Baroness has allayed my fears so far as concerns the British Minister because the Paymaster General was there on that occasion. But further to her last reply to me, is she aware that her statement that revised rules are to brought into operation seems on the: face of it to conflict directly with the text of Article 146 of the treaty itself? Are we to infer that the Commission is entitled to amend the treaty without reference to anyone else?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Council's rules of procedure are not illegal under Article 146. If a member of the Council is represented by an official, that does not alter the composition of the Council, which is still deemed to consist of a representative of each member state at ministerial level. I can go further into this with the noble Lord in correspondence if he so wishes, but he has my assurance that it is not a question of the Commission writing the rules.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend can confirm my belief that at numerous Cabinet committees civil servants represent their Ministers?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not believe that it is the convention to talk about the detail of Cabinet committees. I can remember the odd occasion when a Minister has been detained by another ministerial committee and for a time at least civil servants frequently step into the breach; but they follow the policy decided by their Minister.

Prisoners: Home Leave Offences
2.37 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many criminal offences have been committed in the last 12 months by convicted criminals temporarily released during the period of their sentences on home leave; and how many of those offences involved injury to third parties.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Home Office is currently considering how statistics on offences which are committed by prisoners on home leave can best be collated centrally, but I regret to say that, at present, such information is not available.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that he no doubt finds it convenient that the information is not available? Is he further aware that as recently as last week a man called Bewley was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment and that that man had some years previously also been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment but had been released after 11 years of that sentence had been served and was able therefore to participate in a further murder? Do Her Majesty's Government really intend to look into the scandal of failure to protect the public from dangerous people who are released and are quite willing to commit the offence again?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I must tell my noble friend that I would have found it a great deal more convenient if I had been able to give him the statistics. On my noble friend's specific question about the person convicted of murder who had previously murdered, I honestly think that he is going a little wider than the Question which is about home leave. The person he is talking about had been released after his sentence and had not committed the crime while on home leave. But my noble friend makes a correct and worrying point which concerns everyone interested in both the protection of the public and the judicial process.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked a similar Question about a month ago. He was told in response from the Government Front Bench that there was a Home Office review of home leave. How can such a review take place when the statistics are not available centrally?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, one of the objects of the review, in addition to looking at the operation of home leave and temporary release schemes, is to examine how various statistics, like the ones I have been asked for today and my noble friend Lord Ferrers was asked for on the previous occasion, can be collected.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, is there any doubt that the great majority of convicted criminals, to use the
22
terminology of the Question, complete their term of home release perfectly satisfactorily as part of their programme for re-introduction into the community?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: No, my Lords, I do not believe that there is any doubt that the majority do in fact fulfil their programme of home leaves and aftercare completely satisfactorily. However, it remains a simple fact that we obviously have to be concerned about those who re-offend while on home leave.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this matter illustrates a certain amount of humbug about the nature of imprisonment for life, as it is called? It means imprisonment for an indefinite period. Would it not be better if the courts imposed definite sentences instead of indefinite periods?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I said earlier, that goes slightly wider than a Question concerning home leave, which applies usually to those with definite sentences. My noble friend is right to point to a worrying situation when people who have been sentenced for serious crimes are released after their term of imprisonment and then re-offend, especially when the crime is as serious as murder.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Home Office research such as that contained in the excellent paper Taking Offenders out of Circulation, as well as independent research such as that carried out by Professor Jean Floud, shows that "dangerousness" as a characteristic is notoriously difficult to predict? Does the Minister agree that the only way to give 100 per cent. protection to the public, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, suggests, is by not granting home leave at all? If the noble Lord has any ideas on predicting which prisoners will re-offend on home leave, he should lay that information before your Lordships' House.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is difficult. It is one of the tasks which the prison authorities have to carry out. Obviously, when they decide whether or not to grant home leave, they have to look at the history of the criminal involved, his home circumstances, the situation of known victims, the offender's behaviour in prison and how he has responded to previous perhaps temporary releases or home leave. All these factors have to be taken into account when the decision is made.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether these statistics, not necessarily limited to home leave as such, will be Available before the House debates the Criminal Justice Bill?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I very much doubt that. If the working party reports (as we hope it will) before the end of the year, it will take a little time to collect meaningful statistics over a period of, let us say, 12 months. Therefore, we shall not have the statistics ready before the debate on the Criminal Justice Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if the House will forgive my intervening again, can an attempt be made to let us know beforehand on this matter? The Government have the material: it could be very relevant to the debate on the Criminal Justice Bill. Can some attempt be made to make that material available?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall certainty look into the matter. One problem is that the material is held in individual prisons and in the individual records of the prisoners concerned. Obviously, some effort will have to be made to collate and collect that information. But statistics do not appear without a great deal of work being done on them and without a great deal of time elapsing.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his last answer caused a great deal of ribaldry throughout the House? We have comparatively few prisons—130, I understand—and we have very complicated and efficient computers. Yet the Minister says that it is impossible to collect those statistics from 130 prisoners. Come off it! Surely, the noble Lord can do better than that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if the noble Lord had been listening he would realise that I did do better than that. There are a good deal more than 130 prisoners. There are 130 prisons, but there are a great many prisoners. It is the individual records in those 130 prisons which would have to be brought together and the information collated. As something of a statistician myself, I am aware that it is not possible easily or quickly to collect statistics: anyone who knows about them will know that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the Government, in looking at this matter, will give priority to the protection of the public? Will it be laid down that if there is danger of the repetition of a serious offence, such as the one I quoted of murder, when a person is released, that should be a decisive factor in consideration of the matter?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, my Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Last July, the director general of the Prison Service issued guidance to all governors asking them to look carefully at procedures to ensure that they conformed with national policy and that matters of public protection, as well as the position of the criminal on reaching the end of his sentence, were borne in mind.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that only a prophet with divine inspiration can tell whether there will be the commission of a similar offence or not, and that we do not have such prophets?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: How do you know?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, for sure, I am certainly not one of them. I can, however, say to my noble friend that that is the kind of difficult decision which the prison authorities have to make every time they decide whether to grant home leave to a prisoner.

Orimulsion
2.45 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, perhaps I may point out that the date in the second line of the Question as it appears on the Order Paper should read "27th" and not "29th" November. I apologise for that mistake.
The Question was to ask Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the concerns expressed in this House on 29th November 1991 (HL Deb col. 1314), whether they are satisfied that the continued burning of orimulsion at Ince B and Richborough power stations will not increase acid deposition in the surrounding areas or slow down the process of reduction in those depositions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, prior to the authorisation of Ince and Richborough, Her Majesty's inspectorate of Pollution modelled the impact of the stations on environmentally sensitive areas and, consequently, the emissions have been constrained. Specifically, Ince and Richborough are required to fit pollution abatement equipment in advance of other stations.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply, which is considerably reassuring. But is she aware that a report on acidification by the three statutory conservation agencies of 29th October last year showed,
"Wales to be the worst affected part of Britain with effects on fish, dippers and otters"?
In the light of that report, is the Minister further aware that the burning of a highly polluting fuel such as orimulsion at Ince B on Merseyside, which is very close to North Wales, is viewed with much concern in the Principality, although there is a welcome for the firm regulatory stance which has been taken by HM Inspectorate of Pollution and for the plan, as I understand it, to require appropriate sulphur abatement techniques at Richborough and Ince by 1st April 1998?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord well understands the importance which HMIP places on this issue. I am sure he will agree that this House and this Government are always very conscious of the importance of such issues in Wales. He will also be aware that in part it is the nature of the soil which determines the effects of the emissions. Perhaps I can reassure the noble Lord that the amount of sulphur dioxide that stations are permitted to emit is no more than was previously allowed when they were burning oil.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is it really necessary to burn orimulsion at the power stations when there are abundant coal supplies available? Does not the Minister agree that it would be better to couple one or two coalmines to these power stations and consequently save many miners' jobs?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to say that when I was a Minister at the

25
Department of Trade and Industry I was delighted to answer energy policy questions from the noble Lord, and that is what this question is.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that this is a matter of considerable concern in North Wales? Can she say whether the situation has been reported to her right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales and whether he is conducting an inquiry into it?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we are well aware of the concern in Wales. Her Majesty's inspectorate works closely with the Welsh Office. After today I shall make absolutely certain that this matter is under discussion, as I am sure it will be.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, on the basis that the Government's regulations are being complied with, what form of energy these power stations should use is a commercial decision?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. What is important is that the Department of the Environment and Her Majesty's inspectorate are concerned with the protection of the environment, whatever the fuel.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, would the Minister be good enough to remind herself (because the House will recall) that she is answering on behalf of the Government and not on behalf of one particular department? The question asked by my noble friend Lord Mason was about the use of orimulsion. The Minister cannot get away from answering it by saying that it is the concern of another department.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I was not trying to get away from the question, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, puts it. This Question is about environmental effects and I would stress again that the inspectorate is concerned to ensure the protection of the environment irrespective of the fuel.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware of any plans to have more such power stations? Does she know whether there have been any applications for more?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, at the moment there are no further applications with Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following the supplementary question that was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, from the point of view of general energy policy would not the Government be better devoting more effort to using coal in an environmentally acceptable way than facilitating the use of orimulsion?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I well understand the concern of the noble Lord on the issue, but it is outside the realm of this Question.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recognise that this is an environment Question and that the question of whether we burn orimulsion or coal in our power stations is an environmental question? Furthermore, it is a question about the future of the British coal industry, which the Government have done their best to destroy. Would the noble Baroness revert to her original Answer and say whether the equipment that she mentioned, unspecified, in these two power stations is flue gas desulphurisation equipment which would allow orimulsion at least to generate less sulphur dioxide than it does at present? If that is not the case, then are we to be subjected to further emissions of sulphur dioxide from the burning of orimulsion as opposed to coal, which will increase the acid rain problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Moran, referred?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, in relation to the burning of orimulsion, I advise the noble Lord that the operators are required to fit sulphur abatement equipment by 1st April 1998, which is three years in advance of the requirement for other stations. That is because of the additional information that has been obtained on this product. That requirement emphasises our concern about this issue.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Baroness now saying that until early 1998 two power stations will be allowed to burn what is recognised to be the dirtiest fuel in the world and that we shall suffer?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as I said in an earlier answer which perhaps the noble Lord missed, I stress that the amount of sulphur dioxide which the stations are permitted to emit is no more than was allowed previously when the stations were burning oil.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that people outside this place, particularly in coalmining areas, will be appalled that she is refusing to answer questions about coal and the coal-firing of power stations on the very day that a further two mine closures have been announced? Is it not shameful that we should be allowing the burning of this filthy fuel in our power stations while we are closing down the best part of our coalmining industry which could provide fuel that is both cheaper and far cleaner, particularly if flue gas desulphurisation plants are introduced? Cannot she do better than she has done so far?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I well understand the concern which the noble Lord raises on these issues. What we are looking at this afternoon in this House is the question of whether the burning of orimulsion is polluting the environment excessively. I had hoped to answer noble Lords by pointing out that because of the work and requirements of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, the pollution from orimulsion is no greater than from any other fuel. Which fuel is chosen is a matter for the operator.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, why cannot those stations be converted to coal?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, one of these stations was converted from coal. Again, this is a subject in which decisions are based on the knowledge of the operators.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, may I revert to the question that was put to the Government by my noble friend on the Front Bench and ask the Leader of the House whether the noble Baroness, whom we all love very dearly, was ill advised when she answered in the way that she did? Is it not a fact that the Government Front Bench must answer for the Government?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, if I may, I should prefer to answer the noble Baroness myself. I was not ill advised. It was my way of saying that I believe that this is outside the scope of the Question. I apologise if that caused offence to Members of your Lordships' House.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness one further question? I am sorry to press her about this. She said that the choice of fuel was a matter for the operators. Is it not the case that, as the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, replied from the Government Front Bench on 27th November 1991, the burning of orimulsion on a long-term basis is with the agreement of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution under S.I. 318? It is therefore not a free choice of the operator.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that that is the standard to which it has to be burned. I stress again that the choice of what is burned is a decision for the operator.

Committee of Selection
2.58 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in accordance with Standing Order 61 a Committee be appointed to select and propose to the House the names of the Lords to form each Select Committee of the House (except the Committee of Selection itself and any committee otherwise provided for by statute or by order of the House) or any other body, not being a Select Committee, referred to it by the Chairman of Committees, and the panel of Deputy Chairmen of Committees; and that the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee—
L. Denham, L. Graham of Edmonton, B. Hylton-Foster, L. Jenkins of Hillhead, L. Morris of Castle Morris, L. Richard, L. Tordoff, V. Ullswater, L. Wakeham (L. Privy Seal), L. Weatherill.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Medical Ethics: Select Committee
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the ethical, legal and clinical implications of a person's right to withhold consent to life-prolonging treatment, and the position of persons who are no longer able to give or withhold consent; and to consider whether and in what circumstances actions that have as their intention or a likely consequence the shortening of another person's life may be justified on the grounds that they accord with that person's wishes or with that person's best interests; and in all the foregoing considerations to pay regard to the likely effects of changes in law or medical practice on society as a whole.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Thursday last by Viscount Montgomery of Alamein—namely, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
2.59 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Walllasey: My Lords, it is an honour to open today your Lordships' debate on the gracious Speech. I know how much your Lordships look forward to hearing the maiden speeches of my noble friend Lord Chesham and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. I know that we shall listen to them on many occasions, and I, particularly, will take careful note of all that they impart to us.
It is impossible, in the short time available, and with so many of your Lordships wishing to speak, to make a truly comprehensive review of foreign policy. Forgive me then, but I shall be selective. I shall concentrate my remarks upon the Middle East, South Africa, Russia, Hong Kong, the former Yugoslavia, and Britain's aid effort, but that is only a small part of it. My noble friend Lord Cranborne will concentrate his remarks upon our defence and security policy.
No Foreign Office Minister can survey the world with boundless optimism. There is too much going on which reinforces Gibbon's view that history is the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind, but circumspect optimism has its place. Events this year have made the case against pessimism.
In the Middle East, South Africa, and even in Russia there is much, although not yet enough, from which we may take some real encouragement. In the Middle East, the breakthrough earlier this year in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians was a dawning of new history. It was a defeat for the pessimists. It has

29
been an encouragement for all involved in the peace process. Progress is now taking place in other talks between Israel and Jordan. Further negotiations between Israel and Syria and Lebanon are in preparation. There is no way in which there can be a complete and durable peace in the region until all aspects of those peace talks are successful.
Having recently visited Cairo, I am well aware of the effort that the Egyptians have been making towards those peace talks. I am also well aware that this is no time for delay; that there is an expectation among the Palestinians which we have to try to satisfy in a short space of time. Therefore, all the nations involved, and all those who would help them, need to seize this opportunity of peace. It was Cardinal Newman who once said:
"discharge your olive branch as if from a catapult".
I am not sure that it is possible to do that, and it might even be dangerous in certain territories, but what I do know is that our involvement is quiet but considerable. We are now stepping it up, and it is being seen more clearly. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was in Syria in October. Mr. Arafat and the Lebanese Foreign Minister are coming to London in December. The Foreign Secretary will visit Israel, Jordan, and the occupied territories in January.
I said a moment ago that I had been struck by the deep commitment of Egypt. I have also been struck by the willingness of many nations around the world to help in the whole of the peace process. It is that which we must manage with care. One of the matters which is clear to me is just how brave the protagonists have been, but that their bravery will be undermined unless the whole international community backs them up in translating the initial peace process into action for the Palestinian people. The European Community already proposes spending 90 million ecu this year. There will be a substantial package of support for the next five years, which has yet to be worked out in detail. The United Kingdom has been contributing through its annual bilateral aid programme some £6 million to the UNRWA. We have our special programmes in the occupied territories. We have just pledged 2 million dollars through the World Bank Trust Fund for technical assistance and feasibility studies for economic development of the occupied territories. I believe that to be a classic example of aid buttressing peace. It is one of the fundamental, long-term ways in which the aid programme facilitates peace.
Much further south, in South Africa, we were all glad to see the multi-party negotiation process reach a successful conclusion with the agreement last week on an interim constitution. I am well aware that there are those in South Africa who were not in agreement, but we hope that they will see the importance of the step which has been taken, because that step paves the way for the establishment of the Transitional Executive Council and the independent commission for the elections which are due to take place on 27th April next year.
The multi-party negotiating process has been a valuable step down the difficult road to non-racial democracy in South Africa. We very much hope that all South Africans will support the process of transition.
30
We have long argued with the parties concerned and in the international community that the most important thing for all the people of South Africa is that an end should be put to the violence in South Africa. We hope that all South Africans will participate fully in the elections and the democratic life of their country, for any who choose to exclude themselves run the danger of having no proper say in the future.
The European Union has agreed to set up an electoral unit to work closely with the existing EC observer mission to South Africa. The Commonwealth too will be involved in overseeing the April elections. The Organisation of African Unity is also to assist. The United Nations will also be involved in the elections. It was my job last Friday to discuss this matter in New York with the United Nations Secretary General to see how we can best achieve real co-ordination among the many people offering to help in what will be a complicated situation when so many people will be voting for the first time. The British Government wish to do everything that they can to help ensure that the elections are a success by making sure that they are free and fair and that there is full preparation for them, which will begin early in the new year.
The United Kingdom is also giving every support to the process of transition. Right from the earliest days, when we pressed for the release of political prisoners and the unbanning of the ANC, we ensured that we had an open door in London to all the main negotiators. Over the past seven years, we have given training and practical support to South African community leaders. We have initiated the sending of international observers to help curb violence in South Africa. I am always delighted to hear what an excellent job those people have been doing in our name for the people of South Africa. That reflects exceptionally well on all those who have been serving there.
What South Africa needs more than anything else is new investment. It needs it to regenerate the economy, to provide jobs, to open doors and to provide a new beginning to all those who were for so long excluded from a full life in South Africa. That new investment will be vital to the transitional process and for the prosperity of all South Africans. I am glad to note that in the United States all federal bans on investment have now gone and that many of the state bans are being lifted. The IMF and the World Bank are preparing to help South Africa. But, above all, what South Africa needs, like so many other nations, is trade not aid. That is why we must do all that we can to facilitate the trade which is so badly needed for the development and health of the new South Africa.
Whereas the news in South Africa may be good, sadly in just the past week in Nigeria we have seen a significant reversal of the democratic process. We deplore the decision of the military to take back power and to dissolve all the elected institutions. No military dictatorship can solve Nigeria's problems, or anyone else's for that matter. They could have done otherwise. Britain has consistently supported a peaceful transition to democratic civilian government which would be acceptable to the Nigerian people as a whole.

31
Perhaps I may say that for more than 10 years we have shown considerable patience and understanding towards Nigeria. During that time both the economy and the lot of ordinary Nigerians have sharply deteriorated. That is why we urge General Abacho, who led the military take-back, and his colleagues to move as rapidly as possible to accountable democratic civilian government.
Your Lordships will recall that we took no further steps as regards aid and have done only minimum work with the Nigerians since the former General Babangida annulled the 12th June elections last summer. However, we now see the need to take other steps potentially. That is why we are considering with all our international partners what further steps may be taken in response to the backward step taken last week by General Abacho and his colleagues.
The news from Russia is better, despite the curious logic of some apologists in this country for Rutskoi and Khasbulatov. It is an area which brings encouragement. The British Government have consistently supported Yeltsin as a reformer. It is unreal to believe that a leader with less than his nerve and steel could bring about real change for the better in Russia. There is no doubt we and the rest of the international community are right to support him in his hour of need. But we wait to see what happens to a democratic Russia.
Following President Yeltsin's victory at the White House —I believe that it was a victory for the cause of economic and democratic reform in Russia—he is engaged in the largest democratic consultation that has occurred in Russian history. That is a major undertaking. It is one which undoubtedly he will find exceedingly difficult, as will the Russian people. We must face the fact that elections for the first time to a new bicameral parliament and to some regional assemblies and a referendum on a new constitution would be no easy task for a nation well versed in democratic elections. Therefore, one can easily see how difficult that will be among people who have never participated in their democratic future.
The new draft constitution is by no means a blueprint for despotism. There is a powerful president in Russia. That is a feature of the constitutions of a number of Britain's closest allies. I believe that the process of consultation and its results, which President Yeltsin is driving forward, can produce a post-totalitarian federative, democratic Russia. But the Russians will need help.
Already eight British parliamentarians from another place and 12 other experts have visited Russia and will monitor the December elections. There is a £500,000 British Programme for Democracy to help to support the new institutions to emerge after the elections, especially the parliament. We must realise that Russia has no real experience of democracy as we know it and as many of its people expect to have in Russia as a result of broadcasts from the BBC and other media. We must nurture that democracy. British experts have covered the preparations for the elections and they have recently returned from an advisory visit. They report that there is much indeed to be done. All that is in addition to the Know-How Fund, which, as my right honourable friend
32
the Foreign Secretary described in another place last Friday, is intended to help Russia to get on with the job of modernising and of standing on her own economic feet. But we are well aware that the process, whether economic or political, will take a long time and will require a great deal of patience on the part of the member nations of the international financial institutions.
During the past few years your Lordships have expressed much interest in Hong Kong. There is no doubt that the focus of discussion between the British and Chinese. Governments is about the kind of democracy that should exist there in future. Its elections are of a different kind. We are all well aware that the 1984 Joint Declaration by Britain and China sets out the detail of rights and freedoms which make up Hong Kong's way of life. It provides for that way of life to carry on for 50 years after 1997. I hope it is not necessary to say—but for the record I shall do so—that we want to see the Joint Declaration which was agreed by Britain and China implemented in full. Part of the declaration states that by 1997 Hong Kong's legislature will be elected. China's Basic Law for Hong Kong, which will come into force in 1997, sets out the detail of the gradual development of democracy which has been under way for a decade.
So Britain's talks with China are not about whether to have democratic arrangements—we have already agreed that—but whether the last round of elections to be held under British sovereignty (in 1994 and 1995) will be fair, open and acceptable to the people of Hong Kong. The United Kingdom's approach to talks is persistent but flexible. During the past three months the Foreign Secretary has twice talked to his Chinese colleagues. The Government will redouble their efforts to work for agreement—but not at any price. We must remember the Zen proverb: "What is the sound of one hand clapping?". We need two hands to make a deal.
Your Lordships will understand the importance of arrangements which help to preserve the rule of law and which go with the grain of the people of Hong Kong's wishes. With the people of Hong Kong on side, stability and prosperity will be assured. The Governor will make announcements in a few weeks but at the present time it is absolutely crucial that the Hong Kong people decide their future.
China itself is going through a period of tremendous economic expansion and reform. It is incredible that in economic terms it grew 12.8 per cent. in 1992. This year growth will probably be 13 per cent. I hope that we shall be able to participate in that because British firms have much to offer China. Although there are in the Chinese economy problems of overheating and inflation its government are having some success in addressing them. Whatever the short-term difficulties, China is set to be a major world market, not least for British business.
I turn to perhaps the most difficult of all the territories with which we are dealing; that of the former Yugoslavia. Today the Foreign Secretary is in Luxembourg with his European colleagues considering the situation in the Balkans. I wish to quote from

33
comments that he made approximately one-and-a-quarter hours ago. In speaking about the political side of this morning's debate he said that we had agreed on two main principles in the Council of Foreign Ministers. The first is that at the moment we cannot relax sanctions. However, if the Serbs and the Croats made the necessary territorial concessions to the Bosnian presidency, to the Moslems in Bosnia, some form of suspension of sanctions might be envisaged. But we are not there yet. He said, secondly, that there should be these territorial concessions, that it is reasonable for the Moslems to ask for such concessions, and we encourage the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and Mr. Stoltenberg, to negotiate such concessions with the Serbs and if necessary the Croats so that there may be in the future a possible suspension of sanctions. But there is a need first for the territorial concessions.
We are all well aware—in particular in my department—of the prospect of a very bitter winter in Yugoslavia. Without doubt it will be much worse than last year and hundreds of thousands of lives will be at risk. There are already 2.7 million Bosnians depending on international humanitarian help and more and more become dependent upon us daily as the temperature drops and the winds rise.
Our present efforts are extremely vulnerable. It takes too long to get along the mountain roads over the hills because we cannot use main routes. There is a process of almost unending negotiations with the local militia. That is extremely frustrating and not always successful. But the fact is that there must be co-operation on all sides of the civil war in order to get assistance through.
Over 1,500 convoys have been escorted by British troops and 70,000 tonnes of aid have got through in that way. The RAF Hercules airlift to Sarajevo brought in another nearly 12,000 tonnes. Over £150 million in British aid has been spent; half directly and half through the European Community. We have looked in particular at sustaining key supply routes and opening new ones, if possible including the use of Tuzla airport. But that is extraordinarily difficult and dangerous work. Nevertheless, it remains the best way of saving lives. I pay tribute to all the civilian and military personnel working in that field.
If there is not a breakthrough in the discussions, which I understand will take place in Geneva next Monday, and if the lack of co-operation persists, parties must understand that the humanitarian commitment from the world at large will not continue indefinitely. That is why I emphasise that the onus is now on the Serbs to make those further territorial concessions, of which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke, to meet the Moslem demands in the Geneva talks next Monday.
The Bosnian Serbs are being pressed hard. They understand that if they resume the strangulation of Sarajevo, they face the prospect of air strikes. Sanctions on Serbia mean that Belgrade, as well as the Moslem community in central Bosnia, faces a bleak winter.
No quick progress can be promised. We can merely promise to continue to help those who greatly need our
34
assistance throughout the winter. We shall do that. But above all, we continue to support efforts towards the political settlement which is so urgently needed.
I said that I would say a few words about the aid programme. Most visibly, ex-Yugoslavia is at the centre of our response to humanitarian emergencies but we cannot keep helping in emergencies without underpinning our work to long-term development aid. The changes which we face in many different parts of the world are difficult to cope with but we have now developed what I believe to be a more flexible aid system to help those in the greatest need and to help nations to stand on their own feet and to trade because that is what they would wish to do.
Most clearly, in central Europe and the former Soviet Union we have contributed to the process of transition to market economies and plural democracy through the multilateral agencies, and particularly through the British Know How Funds. Those efforts have met with real success.
I have already mentioned aid in respect of the Middle East and South Africa. But as I said a few moments ago, our main business is long-term help to enable poorer developing countries to stand on their own two feet.
I could not enter this debate without saying that the United Kingdom Government will continue to support the negotiators —Sir Leon Brittan in the Commission, and others—who are trying to finalise a global balanced outcome for the Uruguay Round of GATT by 15th December because there is no more important single factor for the economic prospects of the developing world, just as much as for the developed world. We shall push with all our energy for that successful conclusion.
The poorest and most indebted countries of the world also need our help in terms of better debt relief. Again, that is an area in which the United Kingdom has taken the lead in pushing for full Trinidad terms. Those countries will need our help by way of concessional financial support and technical assistance to help to reduce poverty, promote economic reform and to achieve better standards of government. I believe that we are right to use our expertise and greater wealth to help to improve the living standards of the people in those countries. It is also very much in Britain's interests to do that.
We are a week away from the Budget Statement and therefore your Lordships will not expect me to say anything about the aid budget. But I am determined to push even harder than before for the best possible value from the aid budget, for good value for British taxpayers and good value for recipients on the ground.
A large and increasing proportion of our aid is passing through the multilateral agencies. Over 20 per cent. of our aid is spent through the European Community. Therefore, we are engaged upon a relentless effort to ensure that all multilateral institutions are as effective as they can be in the interests of the taxpayers and the aid beneficiaries in having the very best value for money.
In conclusion, perhaps I may say in regard to our work in the foreign affairs field that the range of our work and the armies of people out in the field helping Britain's voice never ceases to amaze me. We were at

35
the heart of a successful UN operation in Cambodia. We played a major role in the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Limassol. We contributed to the UN blockade of Haiti. We have been at the heart of the debate on the future of the new European union. In NATO we are formulating, with our allies, the approach to eastern and central Europeans and former Soviet Union applicants in preparation for the January NATO summit. We seem to become daily more active in the Security Council
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to pay tribute to the work of those public servants who work in both the diplomatic service and the overseas development administration. I am unfailingly impressed by their dedication and expertise. They do a good job, often under extremely difficult circumstances. We should be duly grateful to them, for Britain is exceptionally well served by those men and women.
There is a massive network of expertise and information. It is in Britain's interests to use its expertise to its best possible effect. We shall seek to do that because Britain will reap the rewards. The Government are committed to that.
3.27 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in the 18 months since the last debate on the Address, there have been a number of important developments in world affairs. If only it were possible to welcome them all. Regrettably, that is not so. In many respects there has been a deterioration in the prospects for peace and justice in the world. And in many respects, the Government's record in promoting peace and justice is not one of which we can be particularly proud.
Nor have we made enough progress in adjusting our defence and security policies in the light of the dramatic changes that have followed the collapse of the former Soviet Union. I shall return to those matters in discussing our aid policies, the appalling war in Bosnia and in reflecting on both the future role of the United Nations and Britain's current defence strategy.
Before doing that, I wish to sound one or two notes of optimism. Like the Minister, I begin with the Middle East. The most exciting breakthrough in securing peace in an unstable and conflict-stricken part of the world was the Israeli-Palestinian agreement of September this year. For years the prospect of peace in the Middle East had looked hopeless. Now it looks hopeful. At last the extremists and fundamentalists on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been overruled. We should recognise the very considerable courage of both the Labour government in Israel and of the PLO in reaching that accord.
As the noble Baroness said, there is obviously still a long way to go before the implementation of many aspects of the agreement. Nor can a lasting settlement in the Middle East be achieved without the implementation of UN resolutions which embrace all the nations of the region. Further progress must be made to secure agreements between Israel and the Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. I am glad to hear that in the case of Jordan, a good start has already been made. Meanwhile, more must be done by European nations and particularly by
36
the UK (given its historic duty to the Palestinians) to provide economic assistance for the occupied territories, as well as political support. Britain should be taking the lead in the UN and in the European Community to increase aid (both bilateral and multilateral) to the occupied territories. Anyone who has observed, as I and, I am sure, many other Members of your Lordships' House have, the terrible poverty and deprivation and the high levels of unemployment in those areas must surely accept the vital role that such aid would play in undermining the extremists. Despite what the Minister says, regrettably the British contribution has been too small, given our special responsibilities for the Palestinians.
My second topic, as it was the Minister's, although I had not seen her speech beforehand, is South. Africa—a second source of hope in a world where war and poverty seem to dominate. Although I share the Minister's concern about the unacceptable violence that has taken place in South Africa, I nevertheless believe that we can now be more hopeful. In the Labour Party we have for many years argued that sanctions had to be imposed to destroy the evil system of apartheid. That met with opposition from some noble Lords opposite. I believe that our approach has been vindicated by developments in South Africa which culminated in the agreement in July to hold multi-party elections next April.
I welcome very much therefore the reference in the gracious Speech to the Government's support for the construction of a democratic society in South Africa. That will mean far more than the sending of observers, agreed at the European Council in the summer. Indeed, a very substantial presence will be needed to supervise and monitor the election process and to ensure that the many millions of black voters who are illiterate—many of whom live in rural areas—are informed of their democratic rights and are able to exercise, them freely when the time comes. It will also mean the improvements of a longer term kind in trade to which the Minister referred.
The successful elections in neighbouring Namibia and the smooth transition to a working democracy in that country are another success story in the region. Unfortunately, the bordering state of Angola is suffering one of the worst internal conflicts anywhere, with terrible daily slaughter. For far too long the US Government supported Savimbi and in doing so prolonged the civil war. I am glad to say that US policy has since been changed. However, the British Government, along with others, have so far done too little to ensure that UN resolutions on Angola are implemented and that no further assistance reaches Unita from countries that have supported it in the past. Urgent action is needed in a desperate situation.
As a continent, Africa is suffering despite the bright spots such as Eritrea, Uganda and Namibia where the situation is much better than it was. I recognise the concern that the Minister has felt for Africa over many years and her efforts to help African countries. I also welcome the reference in the gracious Speech to the maintenance of a substantial aid programme to promote sustainable development and good government. However, on these Benches we cannot help but feel

37
sceptical about such claims in the light of the Government's deplorable record in spending on aid and development. Since 1979 the proportion of our GNP spent on aid has declined substantially from 0.51 per cent. to 0.31 per cent. in 1992. If the freeze introduced in last year's Budget continues, it is estimated to fall to 0.26 per cent. by 1995. That would be the lowest level since records began. How can the Minister defend that? How can the Government defend those figures when, at the Rio conference on the environment, the Prime Minister spoke of providing "substantial extra resources" and of achieving the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP as soon as possible?
One can only conclude that, as in so many other spheres, this Government fail to keep their promises. They fail to keep their promises on taxation and their promises on spending. Moreover, they neglect the poor in Britain and the poor in the third world. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will not make the excuse that it is a result of economic recession. Plainly, it is not: expenditure on aid fell in real terms in seven of the 10 years of real growth in GNP between 1979 and 1991.
Cuts will hit the bilateral aid programme hardest because of commitments already made (to which the Minister referred) to multilateral programmes. The cuts mean that many of the UK's NGOs, focusing on the poorest countries, will have difficulty sustaining their excellent work. They mean that development assistance with the largest long-term benefits will be hit hardest because the political pressures for immediate help, such as food aid in famine, are greater.
The future is bleak for sub-Saharan Africa without political stability and a sustained economic recovery. To achieve that the World Bank estimates that a 4 per cent. per annum rate of growth is needed in development assistance in the region. Meanwhile, Britain slips further and further away from the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP which it endorses and falls further and further down the table of major donor countries.
I hope that the Minister will convey to her right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary the concern which I suspect is felt by many Members of the House about the tragic consequences for Africa if the World Bank target is not reached. Far too many children have already died; the spectre of millions more dying from the effects of malnutrition hangs over us all. We, in the rich world, must recognise our moral obligations to act before it is too late. I do not know how the Minister and her right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary have done in their battle with the Treasury. We shall have to wait until next week for that. However, I hope that the result will be better than last year. I hope also that some progress can be made on the debt problem, for debt is probably the most important obstacle to recovery for many African countries. The full Trinidad terms must be adopted. Pressure must be exerted by the UK Government, along with other members of the G7, on the Japanese to drop their opposition. And ways must be found to reschedule and, where possible, write off multilateral debt. Of course, in all those matters, the UK
38
Government cannot act alone. I hope, however, that they will take the lead in searching for a humane and, in the longer term, economically beneficial solution.
Much of the suffering of the third world is a consequence of economic failure, but some is a direct consequence of war which breaks up families and forces people to abandon their land. Every major famine in recent years has taken place in a war zone. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Judd for reminding me of that fact. As he eloquently argued in a recent paper, the international arms trade has played an important role in intensifying and prolonging many conflicts around the world. Even now, new arms are arriving in Somalia to replenish those originally supplied by the United States, the USSR and Libya.
The role played by British Ministers in the arming of Iraq has yet to be fully exposed by the Scott inquiry. What has emerged so far is a squalid story of lies, deceit and hypocrisy. Money spent on arms in many countries goes far beyond what is justified by the external threat and is a major contributor to the debt problem of the third world. It is vital that the world's major arms suppliers co-operate to reduce arm sales: 85 per cent. of the conventional arms trade is accounted for by the permanent members of the Security Council. The UK Government must play a responsible role in finding ways to limit it, such as properly monitored codes of conduct both in the EC and in the UN.
I welcome the reference in the gracious Speech to the Government's wish to play a constructive role in strengthening the UN's capacity to undertake peace-keeping and preventive action. The Labour Party has always believed that support for the UN must be a key component of British foreign policy. But support for the UN does not mean opposition to its reform. On the contrary, as the Leader of the Opposition said in a recent speech, the Labour Party wants to encourage change and reform and to work to improve the efficiency of the UN by cutting out waste and streamlining its administration. But we must remember the UN can only be as effective as its member states allow. If they block reform or refuse to pay their contributions, it will be hard for the UN to respond to the huge challenges it faces.
Those challenges have never been greater. In 1987 there were only five UN peacekeeping missions round the world employing around 10,000 people at a cost of 233 million dollars. Today there are 13, deploying 75,000 troops at a cost of 3 billion dollars. The definition of peacekeeping has widened to embrace a range of activities including the monitoring of elections, the demobilisation of forces, the collection of weapons, the disarming of paramilitaries as well as the supervision of humanitarian aid for refugees and victims of war and disaster. Peacekeeping forces now have to operate in a much less permissive environment than in the past. Peacekeeping is meant to involve the consent of the warring parties; increasingly this is breaking down, blurring the distinction between peacekeeping and military intervention.
At the same time, the expectations of the UN in the post-Cold War era are greater than ever. In the overstretched circumstances in which it is operating, it is hardly surprising that it sometimes fails to meet them.

39
New structures are needed which are more appropriate to the new circumstances. But we must also acknowledge the UN's successes in Cambodia—the Minister referred to that—and in El Salvador, to give two recent examples. However, if the UN is to have further successes, we must create the structures which will both allow it to play its traditional peacekeeping role and to do more active and positive prevention work such as early warning of conflict and pre-emptive diplomacy. At present the UN has neither the financial nor the military resources to take on all these tasks. Voluntary contributions will not do. Moreover member states must be prepared to pay their dues on time—something which the UK has always done and, I hope, always will.
On the military side, there is now increasing backing for the idea of a specially trained volunteer peacekeeping force which could go into areas of conflict at short notice. Further work is needed on the practical details of how it would operate. Meanwhile, Britain and other countries might designate special units in our military to be available for UN operations. There should be a better system of military advice at the UN in New York. I would be grateful if the Minister can tell the House in reply what view the UK Government take of these various suggestions.
Only a strong UN with the power to act swiftly can deal with problems such as the break-up of the former Yugoslavia. It is regrettable that the UK Government have failed to respond to the request of the UN Secretary General for extra personnel. I was shocked to hear the former Minister for Europe claim at a conference recently that our policies in Bosnia have been a success. What is meant by a success? If they are a success, I cannot imagine what failure looks like. Bosnia is a European tragedy—not just because of the terrible suffering of its people, but also because the fundamental principle of civilised society, that people from diverse backgrounds and beliefs should be able to live together in peace, has been thrown to the winds by the horrors of ethnic cleansing.
We on these Benches wish to give unstinting praise to the role that British troops have played in the UN humanitarian aid programme. They have shown courage and professionalism of the highest order. We believe it would be wrong to end the arms embargo. To do so would only prolong the war and increase the atrocities. We have also supported the proposals for a UN administration in Sarajevo and an EC administration in Mostar. But we have been, and remain, deeply critical of the failure to implement sanctions against Serbia effectively. I hope that there will be no suspension of sanctions until we are absolutely sure that concessions on territory—the Minister referred to that matter—have been made. We are also critical of the failure to enforce the no-fly zone and of the reluctance to increase the UN and CSCE presence in Macedonia and Kosovo to ensure the war is contained. Above all, we deplore the way in which aggression on the part of the Serbs and Croats has been rewarded rather than confronted.
While failing to contribute to Dr. Boutros Ghali's request for further personnel, we continue with defence policies which have not adjusted to the dramatic
40
changes since the end of the Cold War. The process of reduction since 1985 could now be accelerated. For example, is it necessary to continue to spend as much as we are now doing on keeping the waters of the North Atlantic open and deploying tank regiments in Germany? What is urgently needed is a proper defence review focusing on a long term strategy. When are the Government going to face up to this? For how much longer are we going to devote a higher proportion of our GNP to defence than the French and the Germans? Why have the Government failed to develop a national diversification policy for the defence industry? Why have we failed to obtain as much funding for diversification under EC schemes as other major European countries?
Will the Minister also explain to the House why the Government are doubling the number of nuclear warheads from 48 on each Polaris submarine to 96 on each Trident submarine? Ministers are saying that total explosive power will not be changed much. What does that mean? A little more precision would help. It is extraordinary that at a time when the USA and Russia are reducing their nuclear warheads we are increasing ours. Why is that necessary for our security?
The Labour Party welcomes the commitment to the Chemical Weapons Convention and to the indefinite and unconditional extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in the gracious Speech. It would, however, be helpful if the Minister could tell the House whether the Government accept the target date of 1996 for the signing of the comprehensive test ban treaty. The Government's position until now can hardly be described as enthusiastic. Their record on the matter and the decision to increase their nuclear warheads do not set a very good example to those nations with nuclear aspirations. We welcome also the Government's support for NATO along with the recognition that NATO must adapt to the post-Cold War era. Perhaps NATO will be able to adapt a little faster than the Government.
I have said nothing about developments in the European Community. I will leave that to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis who will no doubt wish to comment on the deep divisions that remain in the Tory party and the Cabinet. The unpleasant chauvinistic remarks of the Secretary of State for Social Security at the Conservative Party conference are just one manifestation of that. Perhaps these divisions are the reason why the Minister and the noble Viscount are apparently omitting any reference to the European Community in today's debate.
I do not have time to cover other important issues raised by the noble Baroness. However, I should add that the Labour Party shares the Government's hope for a satisfactory end to negotiations between the UK and China on Hong Kong, with an increase in democracy for the Hong Kong people. We also welcome support for political and economic reform in the states of the former Soviet Union. There is, however, a need for a full debate on Russia so that the House can consider what form that help should take after the election there next month.
In conclusion the new world order provides us with many opportunities to work for a better world. We

41
cannot do so alone; we must pursue the goals of peace and justice through the UN, the EC and NATO, in the G7 and the Commonwealth. But as well as new opportunities there are new uncertainties. We must face up to them with courage and conviction and a willingness to think imaginatively and quickly about how to adjust our foreign and security policies to these changes. A small start has been made but there is still a very great deal to be done.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. It presents the usual problems associated with foreign affairs debates. We hold such debates rarely and therefore the number of topics which have to be covered is so great that none of them can be dealt with as intensively as they deserve. The Minister has to give a tour d'horizon covering 30 or 40 different topics. That is unsatisfactory and frustrating.
For my part today I propose not to talk about a great many subjects which probably should be discussed but which I could not deal with adequately if I were to try. For example, we have discussed Hong Kong on several occasions recently. The situation is interesting and difficult but I do not propose to dwell on it. The breakthroughs in South Africa and between the PLO and Israel are remarkable, if precarious, achievements which we can only welcome and which I hope we shall emulate in our own backyard in dealing with the problem of Northern Ireland. We should all back the Prime Minister's initiative and his refusal to allow any party to have a veto in trying to reach a settlement in that difficult, complex and bloody feud.
I shall not discuss the consequences, considerable though they are bound to be, of the NAFTA agreement reached by President Clinton, nor the consequences of the arms trade to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, quite rightly referred. Nor, indeed, shall I refer to the need to reform the United Nations in the light of the greater and extended responsibilities which the world imposes on it, often without giving it the financial means to carry them out properly. Nor shall I touch upon defence, which my noble friend Lord Mayhew will deal with later.
I should like to dwell on two topics during the course of my relatively brief remarks. The first is Europe and our role in Europe after Maastricht, and the second is the outlook for our bilateral aid programme, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, referred and for which she has a special responsibility.
In the debate on the Address in another place the Foreign Secretary was noticeably reticent about developments in Europe since the Treaty of Maastricht was signed, except to say that the European Union would be helping to monitor elections in Russia and that the Foreign Ministers would be meeting today to consider the former Yugoslavia, where he said the prospects for a peaceful settlement had receded. It seems therefore that we should discuss that matter when we know more about what the Foreign Ministers decided today. I very much hope that there will be an
42
opportunity in the very near future to debate the situation in the former Yugoslavia more fully than we have recently.
For reasons on which the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, touched, it is not difficult to understand why the Foreign Secretary had so little to say about European union. The body of the Government and the Conservative Party remains bruised, tender and sensitive on that issue. The inflammation caused by Maastricht could break out again at any minute, and probably will directly we start to discuss the European budget. On Thursday my noble friend Lord Jenkins observed that a characteristic fault of the Government is a lack of any consistent purpose. (Column 14 of Hansard for 18th November refers.) Nowhere is that lack of consistent purpose more obvious than in defining our role in Europe or, having attempted to define it, in sticking to it. It is no good the Prime Minister declaring it to be his purpose to bring this country into the heart of Europe when neither his actions nor his words, and still less the words of his colleagues, do anything to achieve that admirable ambition.
As we all know, those who opt out diminish their influence on the policies from which they have excluded themselves. How could anyone suppose that, our Government having opted out at Maastricht, the future European Central Bank would be sited in London? Nor can those who still hope to work constructively with this country within the European Union be encouraged by speeches such as that to which the noble Baroness referred, delivered by Mr. Lilley at the Conservative Party Conference. People who believe in the sincerity of the Government's attitude towards Europe should be reminded of what he said:
"Why do they come and scrounge off us?".
"They" are our partners in the Community. I would also point out that 5¾ million of them—from France, Germany and the Netherlands—visited this country in 1992, bringing us valuable currency, trade and tourism. If that is the scrounging to which Mr. Lilley referred, and for which he can produce no figures because no figures are kept, then he should be silent.
Mr. Lilley also said:
"Je suis un citoyen de 1'Europe. Give me the benefit or I'll take you to the European Court … Où est le Societé de something for nothing?",
and so on, and so on. Mr. Lilley must go to Mr. Murdoch's stable for his speech writer.
Is that the Government's policy? Is that the way to influence friends? No wonder his colleague, Mr. Heseltine, speaking to a different audience, at a different conference, at a different time—to the CBI—felt that he had to do something to undo the damage. He said:
"We will serve ourselves not at all if the language with which we describe our continental partners, the imagery in which we paint them and the insularity with which we attempt to rewrite the history of the past 40 years have the effect of alienating ourselves and our self-interest from the very people upon whom we are most dependent".
I believe that it was the Foreign Secretary who accused the leader of my party, with very good humour and some wit, of talking in different languages to different audiences. Nobody can have talked in such different languages to two different audiences in such a short time as Mr. Lilley and Mr. Heseltine.

43
I am disappointed that neither the Foreign Secretary nor the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, addressed themselves to the challenge of post-Maastricht Europe. Had they looked at post-Maastricht Europe they would have found a Europe which deserves recognition and which the British people must recognise—an expanding Europe, with highly uncertain borders to the East and South; a German-centred Europe, as in the pre-1914 system and as in the system between the two wars; a Europe which can no longer rely on being led by the United States. Though we should do all that we can to maintain the strongest possible American commitment, we must surely in prudence be ready, should that commitment diminish or should it be highly conditional. We have to make terms with that post-Maastricht Europe. We have to make terms with a Europe which is German centred. It is no use railing against it in xenophobic terms of the Lilley nature. We have to make terms with it, as some of our European colleagues are doing with far more realism than we are, to take the French as one example.
Nor can we opt out of Europe, as I suspect some so-called Euro-sceptics yearn to do. It would never have occurred to Burke, Pitt, Gladstone or Lord Salisbury that Britain was not first and foremost a European power.
"We are part of the Community-of Europe, and we must do our-duty. as such".
I remind the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, that those are the words of his great great grandfather speaking in 1888.
If we bear those considerations in mind, the task of British foreign policy is, as it always has been, to secure a European balance. That remains the task today. It means that the key to British foreign policy lies with our relations with France and Germany. It lies with the Monnet idea, which is even more important today after the unification of Germany. The only way in which we can secure that balance, and the only way in which German predominance can be balanced, is through the European Union, which must be radically reshaped in the post-Maastricht era when it will be radically enlarged.
We must ask the Government this. Have they begun to think about those changes and the revision of those institutions? Do they recognise that those institutions have radically to be reshaped? Do they recognise that almost inevitably there will be more qualified majority voting, for example; that the size and powers of the European Parliament will be changed; and that, if we do not already have it, we shall have a two-speed Europe? What are the consequences of that? Those are some, but only some, of the questions which have to be answered.
The prospect of the central European countries competing economically on Community terms with western Europe in the next 10 years seems to me to be remote. But does that exclude some closer degree of political co-operation? How are those countries to be accommodated? How is their security to be guaranteed without unnecessarily offending the USSR?
That is merely part of a huge agenda which has to be handled within a short time. One cannot but wonder whether the Government have yet started to address
44
those problems in view of their total neglect in the Foreign Secretary's address and the noble Baroness's speech.
Finally, I must say a few brief words on overseas aid, and on our bilateral aid which is approaching a crisis. As has already been said, the aid budget has been frozen even without further cuts. As the noble Baroness pointed out, its percentage of the GNP has dropped to an all time low. Given our multilateral commitments, and given that cuts are (I regret to say) likely, any cuts will have a disproportionate impact on the bilateral aid which we provide. In the past the noble Baroness has defended with great ingenuity and some dialectic success the relatively small size of our aid budget by pointing out the efficiency with which it has been deployed. However, I would say to her that there comes a point when a diminishing budget has a drastic impact on the possibility of aid being effective and effectively administered. It is regrettable that the noble Baroness will not answer the debate. However, I hope that she will find an opportunity to tell us how the efficiency of the distribution of British bilateral aid can be maintained if further cuts are imposed upon it, as seems likely.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I do not propose to follow my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey in her wide-ranging and, if I may say so, statesmanlike review of the whole of foreign policy extending over many difficult areas in a world in turmoil. It has always been customary to deal with European matters under the somewhat peculiar heading of "Foreign Policy and Defence", and the gracious Speech follows that pattern precisely. The European Community, or the European Union, is sandwiched between the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the search for peace in Yugoslavia. I do not know the explanation of that peculiar arrangement.
When I was in Cabinet—it is now customary for previous Members of Cabinet to reveal all that went on, or what they now believe they would have liked to have gone on—I always used to say that one of the aspects we lacked was a psychologist, because there was no other way of understanding many of the views which were expressed, let alone the decisions reached. We need such advice on the way in which European affairs are dealt with.
I say this with some trepidation in view of the heavy representation on the Cross-Benches. But there is a legal maxim that every man is responsible for the natural consequences of his own acts. We can now see the natural consequences of the negative attitude that the Government have taken from time to time on European matters. On any logical basis, the new European Central Bank should have been sited in London. In fact it has gone to Germany, to the city of Frankfurt. It has gone there quite simply because of the policies that we have followed, our attitude to the Community and the rhetoric which from time to time we have employed and which at times verges on the disgraceful. We have no one to blame but ourselves. But the Opposition can take no satisfaction from that because on the whole their

45
behaviour has been even worse. At least the Government have had some excuse for what they do. The Opposition have no excuse whatever.
I do not refer to the cross that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has to bear in the form of the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I refer to the fact that the Opposition view Community policy merely as a means of tripping up the Government. I cannot believe that if they were in power we should see a more constructive approach to European matters; in fact it could easily be less constructive.
I always greatly respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. They are expressed with great sincerity and conviction and I agree with much of what he says. However, the simple and uncontroversial fact is that the Liberal Democrat Party has no responsibility for matters. It is unlikely therefore ever to have responsibility for matters; and on that note I shall say no more about the views that have been expressed.
Our failure to secure the site of the European Central Bank is not only a blow to the City of London; it is a blow to the country as a whole. As we see manufacturing industry worldwide—not only in this country but in all the older industrial countries—taking a smaller and smaller share of total economic activity over the years, the emphasis must turn increasingly to the service industries. In the City of London we have what is the brightest star in an otherwise unprepossessing economic performance. To have done the City the damage of allowing the European Central Bank to go to Germany is a matter that we all ought deeply to regret.
However, the implications go further than that. Enlargement is a policy that the Government, very, very properly, have not only espoused but promoted; and I agree with them entirely on this. But if one looks at the countries which are likely to join the Community this century and in the first decade of the next century, they are primarily in central and eastern Europe. They are countries that are not only physically, geographically, closer to Germany: they are countries on the whole whose trading links are primarily with Germany, and they are countries whose financial markets, and sometimes currencies, are linked or associated with Germany. What is more, when they join the Community they are likely to be required—and in fact many of them would want—to join the monetary union. So the effect of enlargement will be to strengthen these tendencies so far as Germany is concerned to the detriment of this country; and the implications of the siting of the Central Bank go very much further than at first sight one might have thought.
The Government have sought to take some comfort in the fact that they have secured the seat of the Medicines Evaluation Agency. Of course that is well worth having but, with all due respect, it is little more than a consolation prize or crumbs from the rich man's table. There was of course a time when we were the rich man, but those times have long since gone—never, I fear, likely to return, and even less likely to return if we ever had another Labour administration.
46
The Prime Minister has repeatedly referred to our being at the heart of Europe, and my noble friend Lady Chalker used a phrase which is reminiscent of that. I am sure the Prime Minister is entirely sincere in what he says, but one really wonders what is in the back of his mind. The only explanation I can give is this. There was a time when we thought that we were not only at the centre of Europe but at the centre of the universe as well and that the world revolved around us. In the Victorian era this was very largely true, but unfortunately it ceased to be true a very long time ago. This issue is going to come up in the discussions on the GATT, and I shall not go into that now. But the fact of the matter is that we are no longer at the centre of world events and we are no longer at the centre of European events.
This has nothing to do with the Prime Minister and nothing to do with this party or that party: it is one of the facts of life. We are one of 12 member states. Soon we may be one of 16, and in the next century we may be one of 20. We represent 15 per cent. of the population of the Community and soon it will be less than 15 per cent. In terms of wealth per head and production per head we are now poorer than any of the original members of the Community, and we are poorer than Denmark, which joined it at the same time as we did. Tragically—we can take no satisfaction in this, but these are the facts: we are now in the lower half of the Community so far as prosperity is concerned. But I think the talk of our being at the heart of Europe is partly a wish to see again the great days of this country, and it is an entirely commendable ambition. The difficulty is the gap which exists between the ambition and its translation into fact. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, wishes to intervene.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he aware that the dismal recitation he has given in the past five minutes about this country's position in the world and in Europe is hardly a favourable testimonial of the Government of whom he was such a distinguished member?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, we did very well in the Government of whom I was a member. The trouble happened after I left the Government.
But if I may revert to the general point that I was making and come back to the question of the European Central Bank, it is a peculiar form of conceit to quote one's own speeches. But perhaps I may be forgiven for doing so on this occasion because precisely four years ago to this day, on 22nd November 1989, and on precisely the same occasion, namely in the debate on the gracious Speech, I said this:
"if we do not join in the monetary union, what will inevitably happen will be that the financial centre of Europe will shift from London to Frankfurt".
I even, if I may so say in parenthesis, got the city right. To go on:
"If that happens, neither this generation nor future generations will ever forgive us".—[Official Report, 22/11/89; col. 76.]
The challenge that we now face is to ensure that we conduct our policy towards the European Community in a way which ensures that that does not become our epitaph.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, and my noble friend Lady Blackstone have set the scene for this debate in their wide-ranging speeches. For over four decades until the end of the 1980s these annual debates were mainly concerned with the tensions of the Cold War and their implications. Then came the merciful end of that era of uncertainty. It came rather sooner than most of us thought possible, but when it did come we all drew a breath of relief and saw the possibilities of a new and a safer world.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, took an optimistic view of future developments in Russia, and I agreed with much of what she said. But the reality is that that historic event created a range of new problems which must be tackled and resolved if the brave new world is to emerge. The crucial objective must be the establishment of democracy and stability in Russia itself and in the former states of the Soviet Union. This will be, I think, a major subject in this debate, with the other complex problems in the Middle East, in Hong Kong and of course in Bosnia and its neighbours.
I do not propose to pursue these great issues in this debate but to concentrate, if I may, on another critical area which also closely concerns the noble Baroness and which follows the first theme of my noble friend Lady Blackstone—namely, the crisis in the African continent south of the Sahara. The truth is that we are witnessing there one of the great tragedies of the 20th century. I do not exaggerate, for what we read about and witness on our television screens is a sub-continent sliding back into the direst poverty, with drought threatening 27 million people and with unforgivable military conflicts sweeping 40 million innocent people from their homes. We have seen 10 years of falling per capita incomes, increasing hunger and terrible ecological damage.
How and why have these terrible tragedies taken place? The House knows the answer. The decline is due to a combination of misguided policies, natural disasters and, not least, the devastation of the wars to which noble Lords have already referred. Population growth, inadequate economic policies and the pressures of mass refugees have accelerated acute human and environmental problems. The result is intolerable poverty, suffering and desperation for millions of people. We have seen on the television screen the faces of dying children, and have turned our heads away. I need say no more about that.
Who is to blame? Upon whom does the responsibility lie? We cannot deny that the onus of responsibility for these problems falls first and foremost on Africans themselves. But the international community must squarely face the reality that it also bears a responsibility for Africa's plight.
Perhaps I may give some figures which will help us to comprehend the problem. The decline in real income in some countries is frightening. In Nigeria, Niger and Liberia for example, the decline in per capita income since 1980 has been calamitous at well over 25 per cent. The World Bank has calculated that the number of poor
48
in Africa is expected to increase from 200 million to 300 million people by the year 2000. At 50 per cent., that is much the largest increase in the developing world.
Then there is the population problem. Both at Question Time and in debates noble Lords have called attention to the fact that rapid population growth severely impedes the poor from improving their health, increasing their income and protecting their natural resources. I recall a speech along those lines made some months ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The total wealth of the continent has to increase by over 3 per cent. per annum for incomes per person just to stand still. What does that tell us? It means that since 1980, the total economy of Africa would have needed to expand by 40 per cent. for the average income per person to be at the same level as at the start. It is a grim outlook by any standard. It is manifest beyond doubt that family planning must be encouraged and funded if an almost untenable situation is to be tackled effectively. It is sad to think that high child mortality means that the unfortunate poor feel that they must have more and more children in order to ensure family security later on.
The poor, to survive, destroy the land upon which they depend. The scene is one of forest destruction, water pollution and pesticide contamination. Those problems in turn undermine the livelihood of the poor, and limit their future prospects of alleviating poverty. We are looking at millions of people who are facing a desperate future.
Noble Lords will also be aware that that future holds out no hope that those people will enjoy reasonable health. What are their prospects? Our health in these islands depends on many factors. But the basic needs are access to nutritious food, an adequate supply of safe drinking water and some form of reasonable shelter. Perhaps I may give some simple figures from a country which many of us know well and have visited. We recall a time when economic prospects in Zambia were promising, mainly because of its great wealth in copper. But in four years in the 1980s, the death rate in Zambia of children under 14 rose from 27 per cent. to 43 per cent. That rise was the result of malnutrition, which was due to a declining economy there. In Mozambique, only 13 per cent. of the people have access to safe water supplies.
I turn now to another problem. Early this year it was announced that out of 13 million people in the world who are infected with the AIDS virus, 7.3 per cent., or more than half, live in Africa. The calculation by UNICEF is that during the next 10 years 2 million children will die and 10 million children will be orphaned by this dread disease. What a future to contemplate.
I have already referred to the stagnating economies of the countries of the sub-continent. Their condition is due, so we are advised by experts on all sides, to inadequate policies; and in recent years to the effect of the world recession and the fall in the terms of trade. Time does not allow me to go into detail, but I must mention the huge external debt burden of sub-Saharan Africa and all its implications. The problem was mentioned by the noble Baroness in her speech. The

49
debt is greater than the area's total GNP, and three and a half times more than its annual export earnings. I shall say no more on this point, save that Africa cannot possibly achieve economic viability while that debt burden remains.
There is another dreadful factor to be taken into account. The tragic, wicked and unforgivable reality is that the continent as a whole has been spending two and a half times as much on armaments as on its health services. The consequences are frightening. Let us take the refugee problem that the conflicts have created. The continent has one-tenth of the world's population, but it now has one-third (almost 5 million) of the world's officially recognised refugees. Mozambique and Angola are devastated by war. In those two countries the governments have spent about half of their resources on weapons of war. Over the past 10 years, war and destabilisation are estimated to have caused 320,000 deaths, most of which were the result of diseases which could have been cured by simple treatment. We are looking at sheer human misery and the disintegration of order and of services such as health and education. We are looking at autocratic governments; inefficient state corporations; large-scale corruption; unproductive investment of the aid and loans which are received; distortion of prices, markets and exchange rates; and lack of investment in food production. On top of it all, we are looking at war—totally unnecessary, cruel wars which kill innocent children. We think that civilisation has made advances. My Lords, let us think again. So far as I can see, civilisation is dead in Africa.
Finally, what should be done? What can we do, apart from turning our faces to the wall and weeping? One is tempted to do that. But we have a moral responsibility as members of the Convention on Human Rights and with our long, historic relationship with Africa. We cannot remain aloof from the needs of people whose basic human rights to a decent life are being destroyed. The people of this country have already demonstrated their concern, and that they wish to support the welfare of Africa. Notwithstanding the depression, voluntary donations from the public and from charitable trusts actually increased last year by £15.4 million to £339 million, a 1 per cent. increase on the previous year. The noble Baroness dealt with the aid programme and defended the Government's contribution. I regret to say that the Government have not responded as we would wish—although I must pay a personal tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, who has shown during her term of office that she is dedicated to helping those stricken regions. But she must acknowledge that, while we were committing 0.5 per cent. of our GNP to overseas development 14 years ago, our contribution today is little more than 0.3 per cent.
Mr. John Major said at the Rio Earth Summit last year that he wanted Britain to achieve the UN target of 0.7 per cent. as soon as possible. Perhaps the noble Viscount will tell the House when he replies when the Prime Minister thinks his target will be reached. The appalling state of Somalia and the other countries that I have mentioned means that there is no time to be lost.
50
Of course, Britain alone cannot resolve this huge problem. But we can and must work in collaboration with our partners in Europe to ensure that United Nations commitments are observed. The 0.7 per cent. target must be observed by all donors. If it were, it would help to achieve the long-term development projects in the counties that need them. We could also work to put the Trinidad Terms back on the G7 agenda. That point was mentioned by the noble Baroness. I am not clear that it is on the G7 agenda and perhaps, when the noble Viscount replies to the debate, he can tell us whether that is a practical possibility. Should we not support sound policies to create stability for a better investment climate? Of course we should, for those are the policies which reach the neediest and the poorest and benefit those people who most need help.
In the world in which we live, Africa's marginalisation and the poverty and desperation of its people and its youth cannot be contained within the boundaries of the continent itself. It is bound in due course to threaten global prosperity and stability. The growing frustration and resentment must be defused before they explode and damage the whole world.
Of course it is Africa that must seize its own destiny. Its people and leaders must tap deep into their human and material resources and come up with the wisdom, strategy and commitment to lift Africa from the Slough of Despond. To help them embark on this difficult road, we and other nations must come to their assistance, not with "handouts" that only increase dependency but in a true spirit of partnership dedicated to helping Africa to stand on its own feet and contribute to the enrichment of human life and the protection of the world's environment. Let us turn that dream into a reality.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, early in the gracious Speech the highest importance which the Government attach to national security was stressed. That is another most worthy intention which, I am afraid, is increasingly not matched by practical realities. Since that also has such a bearing on the effectiveness of our foreign policy, as outlined by the noble Baroness, the problems of defence must continue to be aired in this debate, even though my own contribution will no doubt be interpreted by some as resembling Custer's last stand.
Still hanging over the whole of the defence scene, as many noble Lords know, is the question of exactly how much more from the short-term cash flow of the Ministry of Defence (that is, in the next three years) will be removed in the forthcoming all-embracing Budget—how much more, over and above what has already been obtained from Options for Change and its aftermath, amounting to anything between a 20 per cent. and 38 per cent. cut in men and material and in the area of a 10 per cent. cash reduction in real money terms over the past three years. Many people would say that that is a lavish enough "peace dividend", in the light of the world's instability and uncertainty, which was so graphically portrayed by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn.
We have heard rumours that the Ministry of Defence has escaped the worst—whatever the worst was and

51
whatever that may mean. But until I read the small print in the Budget, and we shall not see that until next week, I remain unconvinced. I am convinced that, if significant cuts do in the end materialise in that period, they will not represent just another routine honing-down of the cash available to the Ministry of Defence against expectations which—except for a short time after the Falklands war—has been a fairly regular feature of the past 20 years. It will be a complete sea change for defence and the Armed Forces with (I choose my words with some care) catastrophic effects on the latter's structure, training, motivation and morale and particularly on the greatly overstretched front line and its equipment. It will raise the real spectre of operational failure, which is something that we have not experienced since World War Two. No one should pretend otherwise. However much the Government, egged on by the Treasury, may wish to believe otherwise, in my judgment there are no immediate soft options left. Judging from the heartfelt remarks expressed at Blackpool, that opinion is similar to the views of the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence, as well clearly as the views of the Chiefs of Staff, who are his professional advisers.
The nub of the matter is that the present defence budget is already under totally unacceptable pressure in the light of current commitments. The short-term costings, even allowing for low inflation, call for more not fewer resources properly to cover those commitments and requirements. As noble Lords know well, the Army is grossly overstretched. There are possibly too few units. Certainly those units are too weakly established and manned for the tasks that face them. As I warned noble Lords on the last day before the Summer Recess (and I was not contradicted) we shall soon be in a position where no sustainable operational capability will be possible without resorting to reserves in some shape or form, reserves which themselves are now under considerable threat. That is not a comfortable thought because no one can predict where and when the next crisis will be. It has never been possible to do so. Any Prime Minister who had to admit, when action was demanded, that there was no longer anything that he, could do about it would be in serious trouble. In the same way the Government would undoubtedly have fallen if the Falklands had not been recaptured in an operation of such professional brilliance.
Moreover, with the situation in Northern Ireland unabated and, I am afraid, a long way from a tenable solution, and with outside NATO commitments still high, unaccompanied service still continues to come round every 15 to 16 months instead of an acceptable 24 months. Separation, when one takes account of all the other calls on a soldier's time, is therefore running quite normally at 50 per cent. of the year and in many cases exceeds that figure. All that puts an intolerable strain on service life and service families in particular. To correct these things the Army would need, as I have said on numerous occasions, at least 6,000 more men. That is 3,000 more than even the revised manpower ceiling figure of 119,000, which itself has been guaranteed for
52
only another two to three years. And manpower means money because without the money extra manpower is meaningless.
The other services may have some similar problems; but as the old adage goes, the Army equips men and the Navy and Air Force man equipment, and those problems lie more in the equipment field. Naval and air power, which are so essential for proper flexibility, mobility and protection in any projection of military strength, whether for peace keeping or in a more warlike context, have been continually —many would say dangerously—reduced already, even allowing for the curtailment of the large scale NATO commitments around northern Europe and the eastern Atlantic. Naval frigates have been reduced by 30 per cent.; the RAF's overall combat capability has been cut by one-third and its strike force cut by as much as 38 per cent. All three services have gaps in their equipment programmes which can only be economically filled by early decisions—on which there has been a complete moratorium—and by using to the full the money already earmarked in the equipment programme for that purpose; but now, of course, only at the expense of other desirable, if not essential, parts of the defence programme.
For example, it seems very strange that the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence did not make it clear in his Statement in another place that the cancellation of the stand-off air delivered nuclear weapon —itself a valuable and indeed, in many ways, more flexible weapon than Trident in the sub-strategic field—in any case had to be made because there was not the money in the current defence budget to develop and bring it into service. It in fact was water under the bridge—not a candidate for future budgetary cuts. I suspect that the same applied to what I described as the surplus Trident warheads and I am rather surprised that the Secretary of State had not made the announcement some time before.
Equally, if the Army is now forced to recommend a substantial cut in the Territorial Army when all logic demands that, with regular units so dependent on reinforcement, this most cost-effective reserve—and what I might describe as the valuable umbilical cord from the forces into the nation—should become more and not less important, it can only be because on present funding it has nowhere else to turn to keep within the cash flow already imposed on it.
So, my Lords, hard choices and most unsatisfactory decisions are having to be taken now, with every vote holder under insane exhortations to do the same—sometimes even better —on vastly decreased budgets, with inevitable repercussions on training standards, operational efficiency and sustainability. Further cuts in the next two to three years, with their inevitable "knock-on effect" for the next 10, would only make everything infinitely worse, curtail our ability to support a positive and honourable foreign policy and go a long way to wrecking without sufficient justification a priceless asset, one of the few great institutions in this nation with its reputation untarnished. The Government would bear a heavy responsibility for any future lack of preparedness and professional performance.

53
But even discounting the stories emanating from who knows where about the scope for still more efficiency savings and reductions in admirals, generals and now, no doubt, air marshalls, all of which are frankly as irrelevant in the context of significant budget cuts as they are misleading, I certainly would not want noble Lords to get the impression that there is nothing the Armed Forces can do to adapt themselves still further to a changing world and to future challenges.
The Royal Navy may well be able to run on a few older frigates a bit longer and even dispense with the fourth Trident submarine. It certainly should not have to pay for two dockyards it does not need. The Infantry badly needs to reorganise its regimental system to produce more viable units with a more flexible method of roulement and thus decreased training and movement costs; and there may indeed be some scope for the RAF to reduce its ratio of manpower to front line aircraft. There should certainly be an opportunity, as my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver has pointed out repeatedly, to rationalise and scale down the top-heavy NATO command structure.
Finally, efficiency studies should, naturally, continue to be looked at as, to my certain knowledge, they have been for the past 30 years, including, I hope, looking carefully at the hamstringing of Treasury rules which often ensure that the Ministry of Defence has to bear the cost of things which are actually not related to defence needs. Also, when we look at these efficiency studies, we must do so in the full knowledge that, not being a superstore or a commercial firm, cutting costs and people in the Armed Forces does not always bring greater efficiency and that a great deal more than tight cost accounting is needed if the members of the forces are to continue to produce that exceptionally dedicated professionalism and willingness to take dangerous risks so essential for victory in any conflict worthy of the name. I thought that the Chief of the Air Staff made that point extremely well.
In any case, few of these changes would produce savings in the period of concern. In the absence of a defence review which would give guidance about the future, any cash flow cuts would only increase salami-slicing right across the board and would hinder, not enhance, sensible and economical development.
To those who would hanker after reducing defence expenditure but who, like me, take the greatest exception to the Treasury making any more arbitrary and immediate cuts and may therefore feel that a comprehensive defence review is the right answer—particularly if, as my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver has suggested in print, it is done right across the board, which is how the Options for Change exercise should have been done in the first place—I would say only this. It may well be a great deal better than any further arbitrary salami-slicing, but it is not the holding of a review which matters but rather what input the Government would have the wisdom, and in some cases the courage, to incorporate in that review.
The last White Paper made it clear that the Government wanted to maintain our ability to pursue our legitimate interests at home and abroad; and indeed
54
that we must provide both the demands of any current operation as well as what is appropriate to meet the range of challenges in the future. Nor, presumably, will they want to volunteer to give up the United Kingdom seat on the Security Council (an offer which incidentally would be pretty quickly accepted) or abandon our highly experienced and expert contribution to peace-keeping and humanitarian operations, which so manifestly we do better than anyone, and even, on occasions, to military intervention, when that has been properly agreed and authorised by the Security Council in the interests of international order and stability.
With the traumatic memories of the 1920s and 1930s and the risks that were taken then—when only 15 years after everyone thought (as some do now) that the risk of any kind of conflict was negligible we were fighting for our lives and it was almost too late to recover—the Government will not relish the tag of "paper tiger", which in 1939–40 was so true when our forces were not capable of taking on any foe who was properly and professionally equipped.
So what would the Government be likely to say in a defence review that we do not know already? Because if they are so desperate to obtain at any price a still larger "peace dividend" they must be prepared to assess fundamentally the direction of our defence and foreign policy. Then, and only then, could sizable reductions in expenditure be properly made. But would the Government be prepared to say, for instance, that we should give up our presence in Cyprus, or on the continent of Europe, disbanding all the units involved—for no money would be saved by just redeploying them to the United Kingdom? Would they be prepared to cut our amphibious capability, which is so in accord with our historical strategic role, or abandon completely our nuclear capability when there are mavericks like Saddam Hussein on the world stage? Or, there again, would they be prepared to give up certain technologies in our industrial base when it may not be prudent to rely on foreign sources? All these things, so intricately interwoven, would affect our ability to be forewarned to deal with the unexpected, to operate effectively on the world stage against an adequately armed foe, and therefore would ultimately affect the security of the country. But if that is what they want—and only by removing a capability like that can the kind of cuts being threatened of £1 billion to £1.5 billion be properly obtained—then it must be clearly stated; otherwise the defence review exercise would be meaningless and would merely act as a launching pad for a further round of death by a thousand Treasury cuts.
So to those who would say, "But surely defence must make a contribution to the Government's financial difficulties", I would say that, unlike other departments, it has already played its part to a point beyond which it cannot reasonably effectively do what it has to do now. The country has had its "peace dividend" and "enough is enough". To absorb any more would affect the front line, which the Government say they so want to protect, and would seriously curtail our foreign policy. I hope, even at this late hour, that the Government will think very carefully about the consequences of such action.
4.48 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, already we have had an interesting debate covering all the great issues of both foreign affairs and defence. I start by congratulating my noble friend Lady Chalker on her very statesmanlike speech covering both those areas of the world where we have good news—it is worth reminding ourselves that there is good news—as well as taking us clearly through some of the trouble spots of the world. I follow two quite different but important speakers. My noble friend Lord Cockfield made, I thought, a rather apocalyptic speech about the future of Europe, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, set out clearly his concerns about defence.
I should like to tread a very different path. It may be helpful to my noble friend if I say that I wish to speak on only one country—Cuba. It is true that it does not come into the gracious Speech but there is always a danger that the Caribbean, a part of the world that I have come to know well, will be even more marginalised. Cuba offers an opportunity. Britain is already making an impact but could, I believe, do more.
I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to lead a British trade delegation to Cuba organised by the Caribbean trade advisory group of the British Overseas Trade Board, last June. The group consisted of a number of major British companies with an interest in joint ventures and direct investments in all aspects of the Cuban economy—that is to say, agriculture, tourism, energy, telecommunications, biotechnology and many other sectors.
Time does not allow me to say all that I could on all aspects of these matters. As a frequent visitor to the Caribbean, I was struck by the contrast between Cuba and other Caribbean countries. When I set out, I was not sure quite what I expected to find. I knew that Cuba was a communist state and that it had not, so far as I was aware, gone through the immense changes of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. I can only say that of all the places I have visited, either as a Foreign Office Minister, or since then, I have never found anywhere politically so very interesting.
I say that because Cuba is in a process of rapid change. This was evident last June. It showed itself in the very free and frank discussions that I had with Ministers and officials alike, including two hours of talks with President Castro himself. The discussions gave me the opportunity to talk about political issues, Cuba having taken its first very tentative steps towards democracy, but, equally important, the opportunity to understand the far more startling economic changes now under way. The position has continued since then. I should add that the businessmen who accompanied me were impressed both by the changes and by the rapidity with which their specific talks progressed. In all of this we were most grateful for the help and advice of our ambassador in Havana.
In my report to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office following the visit, I was able to indicate the significance of the changes and to point to a number of major decisions, not, I believe, widely understood in the West, which would indicate that Cuba intends to move
56
first to being a socialist market economy. When questioned, the model that all Cubans suggested to me was Vietnam, and, interestingly, not China. From this model they would move on to becoming a mixed economy fully integrated with the free market economies of the Caribbean and Latin America.
Since last June, many of the reforms that we heard about have either been introduced or publicly announced. They form a very long list and I shall not go into detail on all of them. Among them are the legalisation of the holding of foreign currency by any Cuban; moves to establish a freely convertible currency and an independent banking system; plans to reduce dramatically the bureaucracy by reducing the number of ministries and state enterprises; the establishment of autonomous enterprises (that is, those not state controlled) in all areas of the economy; the encouragement of joint ventures with overseas participation, in some cases of up to 100 per cent., and with leases on land of 99 years and more; the establishment of free zones for manufacturing; and on the political front, the development of committees within the National Assembly able to review and to be openly critical of the Government's economic plans. Most important of all was the agreement to allow Cubans to establish independently-owned enterprises on a co-operative basis in almost all industries, including the sugar industry, with the possibility of their being managed independently on very long leases and with profits being shared among the workers involved after the payment of taxes under a new tax system.
I was pleased to have the opportunity to meet the Vice Foreign Minister of Cuba, Senora Isabelle Allende, earlier this month when she visited London and told me of many of the changes. It was a programme she set out again when speaking to the sixth European/Caribbean conference in Santo Domingo, held as recently as 10th November.
I do not wish in any sense to be critical, but I believe that the United Kingdom Government have been slow to understand what the private sector already knows—that is to say, that the process of change in Cuba will be unstoppable if we give it support. After all, it is a process which we should be able to recognise from our experience of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Through active participation in the restructuring process, we can prove that free enterprise is the only viable way forward. We can help the Cuban people move towards a mixed economy and genuine political pluralism. I believe that the United Kingdom, by itself and as a member of the European Community, has an important role to play. During my visit, many Cubans described to me how they saw their past history—domination by the United States followed by domination by the Soviet Union. Not surprisingly, they wish to be themselves in an independent nation. In achieving that they look for support from both ourselves and the Community.
There is no doubt that many of the great changes I have described have been brought on by the economic difficulties Cuba has suffered following the abrupt ending of Soviet Union support. It is political and economic reality, and the Cubans should not be blamed

57
for facing up to difficult facts. They are not following an easy path; many are having a difficult time. Cuban Ministers were at pains to explain to me that they continue to give priority to the two services to which they attach the most importance and of which they are justly proud; namely, health and education. Nevertheless many Cubans are facing great hardship. In such a situation, time is by no means necessarily on the side of the reformers.
I regret that there is not much sign that the United States recognises the changes. I hope that I am wrong. Surely, what both the United States and the European Community want to see at the end of this great process of change is a soft landing, with a newly-established democracy and private enterprise. We cannot be sure, even with help, that that will be the outcome.
The alternative is chaos and, almost certainly, violence. We have had considerable experience of the problems inherent in change in both the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The instability that this could bring to the whole Caribbean where Cuba, the largest island geographically and also with the largest population—some 10 million people—should not be under-estimated. There would be destabilisation in the Caribbean, possibly spreading to Latin America, and with it the increased problem of drugs.
I wish to conclude with a request to the British Government. Next May or June CARITAG will again take a mission to Cuba to explore further opportunities in a number of sectors of the economy and the role that we in Britain may have in helping to reorganise that economy. I believe that the time is right for a trade Minister to accompany such a visit. It would be an opportunity for the Government to hear at first hand about the extraordinary reforms and, equally important, to ensure that Britain's role in the process is not eclipsed by that of its partners in Europe. Such a visit could, I believe, have a positive outcome. It would be entirely in line with what we are doing in Eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union. If it is right for us to support reform in those countries, why not do so in Cuba as well? The effect would be to achieve a limited but very important objective. I hope very much that we shall not miss the opportunity.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, may I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on her extremely interesting speech: it was the fruit not only of direct experience, but of independent thought, and that is always interesting.
The speech from the Throne promised,
"help for political and economic reform in the states of the former Soviet Union".
Now it seems to me that Western policy towards Russia is flawed. The attitudes of our Government and those of the United States and of most West European countries do not square either with ascertainable fact or with knowledgeable opinion in their own countries, but seem rather a combination of IMF economic certainties and
58
current Kremlin politics. We say to Russia, "Democracy will make you free; private enterprise will make you rich; and President Yeltsin is the man".
But only the first of those propositions is clearly true. It is probably the case that after 20 or 30 years a carefully and calmly phased introduction of private enterprise and competition will do good, but it is certainly the case that President Yeltsin's current policy of continuous "shock therapy", as he calls it, will continue to produce nothing but chaos and corruption. The social effects have been appalling, and, without care, will be enduring. The last two milestones on the long road of inflation have been the withdrawal of the currency in July and the collapse of the rouble zone in early November, when the Russian Central Bank apparently tried to force impossible conditions on the ex-Soviet Union states. You cannot sell bankrupt industrial assets and polluted land to bankrupt and ailing people. You can sell them to rich foreigners all right, but not too many of those who are now inclined to buy smell sweet. At present, 95 per cent. of Russian exports are raw materials. This is not the way to civilised prosperity.
As to Mr. Yeltsin being the man, let us consider for a moment what he has actually done to bring freedom and democracy to Russia. When he was elected, he had the keen support of the Parliament. It had been elected before the Communist Party was dissolved, but it had been freely elected. His Vice President he had himself chosen as his running mate. But he disliked opposition, however reasonable, and preferred this "shock therapy". When opposed, he set up rival "advisory bodies", "congresses" and "constitutional" conferences; deprived the Parliament of its staff; cut what he called its "privileges" and those of the Vice President and of the Constitutional Court; empowered his own private office; empowered his own appointees in all the "information", "intelligence" and "security" departments, sacked them if they began to disagree with him, and finally sacked the Vice President whose democratic mandate was the very same as his own.
In March Mr. Yeltsin attempted to abolish Parliament and to establish government by decree, but was called to order by the Constitutional Court, and backed down. There was a referendum in April which by no means showed overwhelming support for him—only for the continuation of "reform", which is rather different. The myth of a democratic Yeltsin opposed only by Communist "hardliners" was nonsense. In May he used force to disperse a peaceful demonstration. In September he dismissed Vice President Rutskoi, suspended the Constitutional Court and abolished the Parliament—"the cockroach races" as his press secretary called them. But the Parliament being a real one, like our own in the 1640s, refused to go. So last month he ringed it with tanks and bombarded it, seized its members as they fled and flung them into prison, also flinging into prison his elected Vice President; imposed press censorship; banned certain newspapers and political parties, and withdraw an earlier undertaking to submit himself to early re-election. His power is now assured by the army—and by an army which is not too happy with him.

59
Now this is a fairly typical schedule for the making of a dictator. We have seen events like these unfolding over and over again in the past century and a half all over the world. But what do the British Government say? They hurry to give Mr. Yeltsin their support at every turn—so do the governments of most of the other democracies. There are now to be new parliamentary elections and needless to say we are sending the Princess of Wales to Moscow during the campaign, and the European Union has invited President Yeltsin to Brussels. I shall return to the wisdom of all this in a moment.
But perhaps the new constitution, which is to be laid before the peoples of Russia on the same day as the parliamentary election, will make everything all right? Perhaps even such a record as Mr. Yeltsin's could be redeemed by the introduction of real constitutional democracy? Well yes, I think it could. But this constitution is not a satisfyingly democratic one. Let us remember first that we are talking of the country where for the past 60 years an abominable tyranny subsisted despite a constitution which was a perfect model of enlightened propriety. Stalin's constitution was just not observed. So any new Russian constitution ought, one would hope, to contain reinforced-concrete guarantees of democracy.
Unfortunately, the Yeltsin constitution is less perfect than the Stalin one, not more. Much of it is fine: free elections, fixed terms, American-type Senate, German-type duma, and so on. It is really touchingly good on individual human rights, and even promises one or two manifest economic impossibilities, such as a guaranteed minimum wage. But Article 91 vitiates the lot:
"The president of the Russian Federation enjoys immunity."
This means immunity from process of law; he is above the law. It is true that there is a provision of a sort for his removal: if he were guilty of treason or some other grave crime, he could be removed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses, supported by the Constitutional Court. But since he can constitutionally dissolve the Parliament if it rejects his candidate for the Prime Ministership, this does not really mean much. It only has a two-year term anyhow—hardly time to learn the ropes. Moreover, defence and foreign affairs are no business of the Parliament: they are the president's business, and that's that too. All the armed forces, the security forces, etcetera, are under his direct and unfettered control.
Now, in the "transition" between the last constitution and the next, Mr. Yeltsin has "decreed" both the privatisation of land and the new Military Doctrine. The latter is actually a secret, but we know from the "authorised comment" on it that one of its main purposes is to prevent the ex-Warsaw Pact and CIS countries from dreaming about joining NATO, which many of them do dream about. The new nuclear doctrine says that if those countries joined a nuclear alliance they would put themselves in the way of Russian nuclear weapons. The undertaking made by the old Soviet Union never to use nuclear weapons first, Mr. Yeltsin has cancelled. So, I think this is the first great-power nuclear threat since he Soviet nuclear threat to China in 1968.
60
The current baby-talk idea in the West is of "partnerships for peace" between NATO on the one hand and single ex-Warsaw Pact and ex-Soviet countries on the other hand, both in Europe and presumably also in ex-Soviet Asia. These mean nothing unless they mean guarantees against Russia, but apparently that is exactly what they do not mean.
There are 30,000 nuclear warheads in the former Soviet Union. The pay of the Russian armed forces has been virtually abolished in the course of the IMF's determination to bring down inflation and introduce free market forces. The government owe vast sums to the forces and the defence industries. The CIS security arrangement is a dead letter, and the commander-in-chief of the CIS has been turned into the commander-in-chief of Russia. The Russian foreign minister says that Ukraine's warheads are unsafe and should go to Russia. It would be interesting if we could work out who now controls those warheads.
Such is the possible future of Russia that one may think of a parallel with Versailles, and so with Weimar. Keynes pointed out at that time that insistence upon the total economic depletion of Germany would cause trouble, and it did. An insistence upon social chaos in Russia today is even more self-evidently dangerous than it was in Germany then, because of the nuclear weapons.
Prime Minister Chernomyrdin—imposed upon Mr. Yeltsin by the Parliament in place of "shock therapy" Gaydar—has worked out long-term market policies that bear much more resemblance to those that eventually succeeded so well within the defeated and destroyed Germany and Japan of 1945. We worried about their democratisation then—we certainly did—but did we worry about the doctrinal purity of their laissez-faire economic policies? I think not. We transferred wealth to them to use as they thought best in rebuilding themselves under democracy.
Chernomyrdin is a truly interesting man, the very opposite of Mr. Yeltsin—experienced, thoughtful, reliable, and, above all, constant of purpose. How he has survived, God knows! HMG would do well to listen to him and, above all, they would do well to start treating Russia, in one all important respect, like all other countries; that is, by not having a favoured candidate for president. What entitles us to treat the Russians in a more patronising way than we treat the Americans, the Germans or the Indians? Did we rescue the Russians from their tyrants? Have we secured their prosperity in recent years? Do we extend defence guarantees to them? What is this gross claim to know best? Let us give them all the help that we can afford and all the advice for which they ask, but never more than the advice for which they ask. But above let us stop telling them how to vote. That will be better both for them and for us.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I should like to ask your Lordships to take your minds back to a day in June 1993. It was a lovely summer's day. I well remember watching on television one of the early rounds of the ladies' singles matches at Wimbledon, where one of the contestants was losing 0–6, 0–5. A commentator

61
mentioned that he had no doubt that she wished that the ground would open up and swallow her. I feel much that way.
I should like to preface my remarks by advising your Lordships that I have spent most of the past 23 years in Australia, having been involved in the financial markets there. I therefore believe that I can speak with some experience of those markets. These are turbulent times for trade in the Asia Pacific region, with many developing countries rapidly expanding their production capacity and seeking new markets for their products. In developing those strategies, those countries have started with a very protectionist base to build up their local production. In the meantime, Australia, as with a number of Latin American countries, has been maintaining a unilateral liberalisation policy. It is possible that new geographical groupings such as NAFTA and APEC may eventually bring some stability to trade in the region. But that could also work in reverse.
That brings me to the main thrust of my comments: the paramount importance to this region of the current Uruguay Round of the GATT talks. Many people think of the GATT negotiations purely in terms of trade today or in the near future, whereas there is another side to the equation which should be considered. It is that of investment. A country such as Australia has to import capital for investment for growth in competition with other countries in the area. Developing countries are competing with Australian companies for export markets and are threatening to take a share of the Australian market. Their protected home markets allow products to be sold in Australia at a marginal price, and Australia cannot compete for investment dollars with economies that have rapidly growing highly protected domestic markets; for example, in paper, pulp and printing, where Australia's tariffs are at 10 per cent. compared with Malaysia's 16 per cent., the Philippines' 33 per cent., Thailand's 17 per cent., Taiwan's 19 per cent. and China's 80 per cent. Equally, in the area of chemicals, rubber and plastics, tariffs in Australia are in the order of 13 per cent; in Malaysia they are 20 per cent; the Philippines 25 per cent; Thailand 27 per cent; Taiwan 26 per cent; and China 38 per cent.
As Australia has been following its own programme of tariff reductions during the Uruguay Round as part of its industrial policy, it is not expected, as a general rule, that there will be a requirement further to reduce tariffs beyond levels already announced should the GATT negotiations prove successful. Those statistics demonstrate the importance of the GATT talks to Australia and many other countries in the Asia Pacific region. They also demonstrate the need to welcome additional countries such as Russia and China under the GATT umbrella to enable them to become part of the market access procedures.
I should like to address my remarks now to the role of the Cairns Group of countries in relation to the GATT talks and to the importance of agriculture to countries outside the EC and the US. The Cairns Group is an association of agricultural trading nations promoting an improved world agricultural trading system through
62
lower protection and reduced subsidy practice. The group accounts for about one-fifth of the world's agricultural exports and represents the same number of people as the combined populations of the EC and the US. The group's attitude was made plain in the communiquéissued after the ministerial meeting held in Geneva on 17th and 18th October which emphasised the fact that:
"The Uruguay Round will bring major benefits to the world economy, failure will entail great economic and political costs. The round must be concluded on the basis of a multilaterally agreed balanced global package. The Cairns Group rejects, as it has since 1986, the notion that agriculture could be set aside in order to conclude interim or partial agreements. The negotiations on agriculture cannot be completed without the full involvement of the Cairns Group and all parties concerned. As major stakeholders in world agricultural trade, the group insists that agriculture is not merely a transatlantic affair. The Cairns Group, of course, was not party to the Blair House accord, which weakens the draft final act disciplines on agriculture".
The communiquéwent on to say:
"The group can only take a final position on the Blair House accord in appropriate multilateral negotiations when it has been tabled and all of the market access outcomes are known and can thus be evaluated".
I wonder whether due consideration has been given to the consequences of the GATT talks being unsuccessful. One may take a line through what has been happening this year in the wheat trade in North Africa. Indeed, it has occurred during the past two months. Egypt has been a traditional buyer of Australian wheat for many years. Between 24th September and 12th October this year the US sold 480,000 tonnes of soft wheat to Egypt under its export enhancement programme at a price of 75 dollars per tonne. On 30th September the US sold 37,300 tonnes to the Yemen at a price of 127.60 dollars per tonne. That was wheat of similar quality and shipping terms but was not subject to the current EEP arrangements. In the event of the Uruguay Round not being successfully negotiated, this type of market deformity may become rife, to the detriment of all trading nations or blocs.
I come now to the final portion of my act, with great relief. After an extensive study of the speeches made in your Lordships' House on the Second Reading of what has become known as the Maastricht Bill, I was somewhat disheartened to find only 14 references to the Commonwealth among all the many speeches in those many hours of debate. Any references to trade with the Commonwealth were made in an historical context. I was delighted to read the very strong and supportive statement issued after the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Limassol on 22nd October. It stressed the importance of and the urgent need for a successful and substantial outcome to the Uruguay Round and, given the importance of agriculture to both developing and developed countries, the need for an outcome which liberalises market access and reduces domestic support and export subsidies. I feel that that was a very strong statement from the Commonwealth leaders, who represent a wide range of developed and developing countries. I was delighted to see it.
That indicates that the Commonwealth has shown that it has a role to play, even if certain cricketers and rugby players are not showing much compassion at the present time.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am sure that the House will agree that there was no need whatever for the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, to be apprehensive in rising to make his maiden speech. The lady who was six/five down at Wimbledon went on to lose. The noble Lord did not; he scored a notable success. His speech was constructive and thoughtful, and it is indeed a pleasure to follow it. On my behalf, and I am sure on behalf of other noble Lords, I congratulate him most warmly on an excellent maiden speech.
I sometimes gain the impression that some of your Lordships may feel that some of us go on a bit too much about defence. We hear from time to time disobliging remarks about "the military industrial establishment" and "the defence lobby", and I shall not be surprised to hear before long that battered old cliché "merchants of death" coming back into the vocabulary. And, indeed, in that context I should, as usual, declare an interest as chairman of a major defence manufacturing company.
Today, however, I shall not be advocating any policy which has a direct bearing on my interests. Even if I were to do so, I should still believe it my duty to speak on this subject because I believe that this country's defences and their ability to support an effective foreign policy are on the verge of collapse. That may seem to some of your Lordships to be strong language; but it is necessary to use language of that kind if we are to understand precisely what is at stake.
Perhaps in parenthesis I may remind your Lordships, if you need reminding, that they are the Armed Forces of the Crown. They are not a government department, a city business or an industrial concern; they are the Crown's Armed Forces. In recent weeks the debate has shown signs of descending into trivialities as the process of interdepartmental briefings continues. In addition, there is the infighting which is inseparable from the process of the public expenditure round and the Budget. Some curiously bizarre comments have been made.
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, pointed out, the argument about whether the Armed Forces have too many admirals, generals and air marshals, and whether the Israeli defence forces organise these things better, is totally irrelevant to the real debate about British defence policy. The national security problems of this country are entirely different from those of Israel. Our security is affected by a much wider range of issues. To state, as was done in a briefing which remains non-attributable and anonymous, that the Israelis do these things much better than we do is about as fatuous as comparing the foreign policy of Luxembourg with that of the United States.
In any case, this endless whingeing about the number of senior officers in the Armed Forces betrays a total lack of understanding of the real nature of the problem. As the noble and gallant Lord said, it may be arguable that a little more surgery in the upper ranks would improve matters. It may contribute to what modern management consultants call the "cost-effectiveness" of the services. But, as I suggested, the Armed Forces are not like a merchant bank or Marks and Spencer. They cannot be reduced or expanded to react to the immediate
64
demands of cash flows and market forces. They have special problems. One of them—a minor problem but worth mentioning—is that the junior ranks in the Army need the incentive provided by the possibility of reaching the highest echelons of their profession. If the number of senior officers is disproportionately reduced, the pyramid of promotion becomes distorted and the opportunities for advancement are correspondingly reduced.
But that is not the measure of the irrelevance of that kind of argument. A wholesale purge of the top brass of the services—which has crept into the defence debate at some levels—would have virtually no effect on the defence budget at all. If every general, admiral and air marshal were given his notice tomorrow, the reduction in defence spending would be derisory. The only real economies to be made are by substantial reductions either in overall manpower—that is, cutting the size of the Armed Forces altogether and not nibbling away at the upper ranks—or by the abandonment of large and expensive equipment programmes. The noble and gallant Lord made a good point in that respect. It is armoured divisions, submarines and aircraft which cost money, not a handful of senior officers. And the fact is that we have already gone much too far in cutting the manpower and equipment of the Armed Forces.
Since 1980 the strength of our regular forces has been cut from 320,000 to 275,000. That will go down further to fewer than 250,000 next year. That represents an overall reduction of more than 20 per cent. during that period. As a percentage of GNP, the defence budget was cut during the same period from just under 5 per cent. to a little over 4 per cent. It is interesting to note that during the same time expenditure on the health service has gone up from 5 per cent. to nearly 5.5 per cent. of GNP, and we now spend twice as much on health and education as we spend on defence. That would be a matter of great satisfaction in an ideal world, where there were no potential enemies, no terrorists, no racial hatreds, ethnic rivalries or unstable political systems. But the world is not like that.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of an observation that was made on the subject just before the end of the Cold War:
"Once we cut expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled, we have no houses, we have no schools, we have a heap of cinders".
That came not from the military industrial establishment. Those were the words of the noble Lord, Lord Healey, when he was Secretary of State for Defence. They are as true now as when he uttered them.
The defence review known a Options for Change was a premature attempt to cash in the notorious "peace dividend" which was alleged to be available after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. Although on its own it led to substantial reductions in the defence forces, it has been followed, as the noble and gallant Lord said, by a further series of ad hoc economies which have resulted in a situation in which the Army, Navy and Air Forces are able to fulfil their existing commitments only at a cost of constant stress and strain.
There is a factor which is perhaps not entirely clear to those who are not in or close to the Armed Forces;

65
namely, that there has already been serious damage to the morale of officers, soldiers and their families. Your Lordships will not hear that from the Army, the Navy or the Air Force. They will not make it public. But if anybody is close to the Armed Forces, as I am, it will be seen that the damage to the morale of the troops has already been considerable. Training, especially of brigades and divisions, has been dangerously curtailed.
Again, I follow the noble and gallant Lord in saying that we are reaching a stage at which, if we are not very careful, were we to be faced again with another crisis of the kind that took place in the South Atlantic or the Middle East, there would be an operational failure. We shall commit troops and we shall fail those troops because we will not have given them the equipment with which properly to carry out their tasks.
If we are to believe the various rumours and reports, now it seems that the Treasury is demanding still more severe cuts in defence spending. Senior officers are beginning to say privately—and in the case of one or two courageous spirits, publicly—that enough is enough. My view is that the trouble has been that, since the end of the Cold War, much of the decision-making on the size and shape of our Armed Forces has passed out of the hands of military experts into the hands of Treasury officials. They have begun to tell the Ministry of Defence not only how much money should be spent on defence, which is powerful enough, but how it should be spent. If that process is allowed to continue, the result will be not only a defence establishment unable to meet its current commitments—and I suspect that we are very near to that now—but one which may well be unable to guarantee our minimum national security.
The very last thing we need now is another round of Treasury-led, piecemeal, across-the-board cuts in the Armed Forces; we certainly do not need some efficiency expert telling us how many admirals are needed to run the Royal Navy. If there is to be any further reduction in the defence budget, we need a radical, comprehensive review of external policies; it should not be only defence policy, because that is not enough, but foreign policy as well. The Prime Minister should now take that in hand and call a halt to that somewhat undignified procedure in which the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is perceived as the hatchet man and the Defence Secretary as the brave champion of the Armed Forces. National security is too important a matter to be dealt with in that simplistic adversarial context.
Before any further damage is done to our Armed Forces and our military establishment—enough has been done already—we must ask the Government to answer a number of basic questions. When the noble Viscount replies to the debate, I should be grateful if he would answer each of the questions to the extent to which he can and to the extent to which he has the time. Do the Government intend that this country should continue to play a major role on the world stage commensurate with its history and traditions? Do we wish to remain a permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations and take an appropriate role in its growing military commitments? The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, took the Government to
66
task for not responding to the Secretary General's request for a greater presence in what was formerly Yugoslavia. Are we to take the role in the United Nations as regards its peacekeeping forces and military interventions, which are growing in scope and number, appropriate to that of a permanent member of the Security Council?
Are we still to be effective senior members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and to make an effective contribution to its military structure? Do we intend to fulfil our commitments to our last remaining post-imperial responsibilities? There are not many of them, but the question needs to be answered. Are we serious about defeating terrorism, especially in Northern Ireland? Do we seriously intend to retain an independent capacity to deter any potential enemy from attacking us with weapons of mass destruction?
Before anybody can make a serious attempt at constructing a defence policy, those questions should be answered. If the answer to those questions is yes, as I most firmly believe it should be—and the gracious Speech seemed to suggest that it was—then the nation must be provided with the Armed Forces and the equipment for them necessary to fulfil those commitments, even if it means making greater economies in other areas of government spending. That is not an attractive or popular option, but the Government must face it.
I mentioned health and education a few moments ago. They are extremely important matters. No one would lightly suggest that expenditure on them could be substantially reduced. But there is an area in which I find myself in some difficulty. With the greatest respect and affection for the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, who is no longer in her place, I must ask whether we have our priorities entirely right when, at a time at which we are being asked to contemplate cutting another billion pounds from our defence spending, we should set a target of £2 billion for overseas aid. It may be, of course, that the Government believe that that is the correct decision to take in spite of the fact that much of that aid goes, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, pointed out in an interesting speech, to countries which spend twice as much money on armaments as on their health services. It may be that the Government believe that overseas aid makes a better contribution to peace and stability than strong defences. If they do, I disagree with them. But if that is the conclusion of an intelligent review of overseas policy, so be it. But until decisions of that kind are made—global decisions about foreign policy, aid, international terrorism and the defence of the realm—it is impossible, as I have said already, to make any intelligent estimate of the ideal size, shape and equipment of the nation's Armed Forces.
Of course, if the Government are content to play some walk-on or supporting role in the world of the 21st century, with little or no influence on the development of a new world order, we may be able to get away with a cut-price gendarmerie, or perhaps, like Iceland, we could get away with no military forces at all. But that decision should not be made in the Treasury, or even in the Ministry of Defence, where it would be unlikely to

67
be made anyway. Defence and foreign policy are matters for political decision and political leadership at the highest level.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is a great privilege to be able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. Anything that I could say could only serve as an adjunct to the questions that he has asked. For I have always believed and I still believe, as I believed in 1940 and the darkest years of my life, that we are a truly great country with a great destiny. In that, I do not quite follow the line taken by my noble friend Lord Cockfield.
To my mind, to fulfil our destiny as a great nation we must maintain our own national security without which foreign affairs may not be conducted to any advantage. For example, let us look at what happened when we failed to fly the flag in the Mediterranean. Our diplomacy became effete in that area and has never since fully recovered because diplomacy cannot be conducted properly in that part of the world without flying the flag.
We must maintain our national security, not only in our own interests and in the interests of our allies in the free world, but also for the worldwide interests which benefit from our peacekeeping activities to those ends. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said with great authority, and with the vast respect which he commands, that we must—these are perhaps not quite his words, as I paraphrase—relate our defence commitment to guidance for the future and it must be a meaningful exercise.
The spectre of operational failure stalked us, as I well remember, in 1939 and 1940. It is no benign ghost which may be laid by pious words of exorcism. The strains on service life—the gaps, the need for 6,000 more men, the knock-on effects for a decade—all warrant the urgent reappraisal, the urgent understanding and the urgent attention of the Government. They cannot be reduced or expanded at the drop of a budgetary hat. Cuts have already been too deep, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said.
However, in the gracious Speech, things could seem otherwise. National security takes pride of place on government policy—a matter of highest importance, the absolute priority. But, as has already been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is it the absolute priority when twice as much is spent on education and health? In the gracious Speech our commitments are laudably broad: support for NATO in a changing security environment, development of the operational role of the WEU, the maintenance of a minimum, credible, independent nuclear deterrent. That policy involves enhanced burdens, such as strengthening the capacity of the United Nations to undertake peacekeeping and preventive action referred to in the gracious Speech, maintaining the fight against terrorism in the United Kingdom and worldwide (also referred to in the gracious Speech) and increased activity in the Security Council referred to today by my noble friend Lady Chalker.
On the other side, there may, perhaps, be savings as regards maintaining the nuclear deterrent. But the
68
question arises as to the implementation of that policy on which a certain measure of assurance is sought. To what extent has our appraisal of defence commitment as a matter of policy in terms of estimated costs changed since the last reappraisal Options for Change? To what extent will the proposed defence cuts erode the Territorial Army (as mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall) as an effective reserve fighting force? To what extent will those cuts damp down on United States initiative and weaken the command structure of NATO? Further, to what extent will they affect our national security, employment in our own country, our balance of trade on exports of military equipment and our economy generally? It is with hesitation, but with no sense of presumption, that an erstwhile subaltern asks those questions to which he knows not the answer.
Whether it is back to basics or back to the drawingboard for a blueprint of commitment in cost, the defence of the realm is the basic of all basics in any language. Appraisal of present and future defence commitments with an estimate of costs is an ongoing process in which account must always be taken of the unexpected. If the fundamental principles of warfare remain much the same, the ultimate in weaponry and technological skills can be all but decisive. Hence the need to develop the ultimate and maximum potential in weaponry as an available source of response and deterrence.
Over the centuries the defence of our island and of our interests has been secured by alliances. It was so secured in two world wars by our "special relationship" with the United States and with the support of the Commonwealth. It is secured today by United States initiative and involvement in NATO, by the operational role of the WEU and by our informal but invaluable relations with France. The EC, subject to enlargement, affords no substitute whatever for those alliances, whether forged by marriage, diplomacy or common interests; it affords no substitute for NATO, which operates worldwide under US command. Attempts to construct an alternative common defence policy within the EC have failed—indeed, they always will fail—and are doomed to failure.
The realities of the situation are that without the support of the United States we dared not risk Suez; we could not have embarked on the Gulf campaign; and, without the AWAC, the Falklands would have been an even more hazardous operation. The nature and extent of our defence commitment is governed by our "special relationship" with the United States and our membership of NATO. But there will always be domestic situations in which NATO may not intervene and in which we have to fend for ourselves.
As to the Territorial Army, some questions arise upon which some assurance may perhaps be given. Is the strength of the TA which serves as a source of recruitment to the SAS to be maintained? Will it have up-to-date equipment? Is that to be threatened by the proposed defence cuts? Is it sufficiently involved in the standardisation of training, procedures and equipment throughout the EC under which forces remain under national command unless integrated for some special

69
operation? Has the process of standardisation proceeded satisfactorily? Is the Territorial Army to remain a reserve force, or is it to be integrated into the Regular Army in much the same way as the Supplementary Reserve in which I once had the privilege to serve? One served then with the Regular Army as a supplementary reserve officer. What structure is proposed in this area? I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister will let the House know what the future concept of the status and role of the Territorial Army will be.
As to the weakening of NATO command structures, NATO, under the aegis and command of the United States, operates worldwide. It now flies the flag in the Mediterranean—that powder keg for massive conflict. It now maintains the nuclear balance west of Russia, and also elsewhere in the world. Until a test ban treaty, or a total ban treaty, or an agreed extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has been accepted by the whole international community, with an effective global system of verification which can be enforced, ought we not to continue to develop the ultimate in weaponry with the maximum potential to seek to ensure effective deterrence? This, even if, as has been suggested, the number of Trident carrying Vanguard class submarines about to enter service may be reduced. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. If the proposed defence cuts shall in any way weaken the United States initiative and involvement in NATO, then we can only ask for how long the minimum credible deterrent will remain credible.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, after the two noble Lords who have just spoken, whom I can only compare to heavy dreadnoughts, I intend to take a somewhat more constructive line regarding the current world situation. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, will not be surprised that I intend to dwell, for part of my speech at least, on overseas aid. The gracious Speech promises that the Government will continue to support a substantial aid programme. Some £2.25 billion is a substantial sum but not, I would point out, large in relation to our gross domestic product, as my noble friend Lady Blackstone has pointed out. A figure of 0.31 per cent. this year, reducing to 0.26 per cent. in 1995–96 will result if the programme develops, or rather does not develop, as planned. As my noble friend pointed out, it does not look as if the United Nations' recommended target of 0.7 per cent. plays very much part in the Government's thinking.
Nor is this sum substantial in relation to our defence budget of £22 billion-odd. This figure is coming down slowly—as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, pointed out—in real terms and as a percentage of gross domestic product. But in 1995–96 it will still be 10 times as large as our overseas aid budget. Later I shall consider our defence budget further, but first I wish to look a little more closely at the aid budget itself. The noble Baroness—I am sorry that she will not reply to me because she is the expert on overseas aid, but I hope the noble Viscount will have a stab at answering some of the questions that I will ask—has said that our primary
70
aim is to ensure that our aid budget is well spent and that we get good value for money. In our bilateral programmes—that is, ones in which we ourselves have control and which are government-to-government—and in the joint funding scheme, where we co-operate with non-governmental organisations that have programmes overseas, there are some very good programmes and projects running in a large number of countries. I have seen some of these. They will help to relieve poverty and improve trade prospects. Therefore we shall be repaid in due course, in kind as well as in heaven.
We should congratulate the ODA on these schemes. It is a department full of dedicated and able people who know what they are trying to do, usually within a constrained budget. Not every project is successful, of course, or wise. I have particularly in mind the Pergau hydro-electric project in Malaysia—which is not a poor country—costing some £400 million, of which the United Kingdom is contributing about £300 million over a period of some 10 years. As the noble Baroness and perhaps the noble Viscount know, this project was carefully reviewed by a well-respected senior official of the ODA who found it to be unsuitable and uneconomic and an oil or gas-fired power station would have been much more appropriate and cost beneficial considering that Malaysia is an oil and gas rich country. Nevertheless the Government have insisted on pressing ahead with this scheme, using up valuable ODA funds, against the official's advice because of a deal with the Malaysian Government that had been agreed, possibly, I suggest, involving arms exports. If this is not the case, perhaps the noble Viscount will explain why this uneconomic project is still going ahead. This matter has been raised in another place, but the answers have not been satisfactory.
However, we need to look a little closer at the total ODA budget and not simply at bilateral programmes. If we are lucky, we shall learn next week that it will remain steady in cash terms for the rest of this Parliament, but this means a reduction in real terms. Leaving aside funds for emergency relief and assistance to the former Soviet bloc, £1,900 million are left for assistance to the developing world. This is split between the multilateral agencies, through the United Nations and the EEC, and the bilateral assistance that I have already mentioned. Over the next three years, according to figures provided by the ODA to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in another place, our overseas aid to developing countries channelled through the EEC will rise from £433 million to £548 million. That is an increase of 27 per cent. The aid given to other multilateral organisations will also increase by some 4 per cent.
Aid to the Soviet bloc will increase by 85 per cent. I am not saying that that is bad. I am sure it is necessary. At the same time the United Kingdom's bilateral aid to the developing world will fall from £1,131 million to £997 million. That is a decrease of 12 per cent. in cash terms. That represents a higher percentage decrease in real terms. This also includes the sums available to the non-governmental organisations which are working in the developing world and which provide particularly

71
good value for money, especially as regards programmes which aim to improve the status of women, through which we are likely to see the most rapid decrease in the rather alarming population increases that are occurring in some countries.
Reading the minutes of the Select Committee of another place, it is clear that both the MPs who were members of the committee and the ODA officials who were interviewed found the transfer of aid from bilateral to multilateral assistance disturbing. Your Lordships' own Select Committee on the European Communities said earlier this year:
"We were very concerned by the serious potential implications of an increase in the size of the EC Aid Budget if this is going to mean an unacceptable squeeze on the UK's total aid budget and thus its bilateral programme".
According to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, this trend:
"may contribute to reduce not just the scale but also the priority accorded to the ODA's main purpose, the promotion of development in the world's poorer countries".
That is a very serious situation indeed, because, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, the poorest countries—mainly in Africa—are now effectively outside the world market. It would be very much to our benefit to bring them back in.
The World Bank report of 1989 mentioned by my noble friend Lady Blackstone on the subject of sub-saharan Africa said that official development assistance to Africa must rise in the 1990s by 4 to 5 per cent. annually to attain sustained recovery rather than decline. By freezing, and in fact reducing, our aid budget we are cutting out the very programmes which are most effective. The ODA clearly needs more resources.
In moving the humble Address last Thursday in reply to the gracious Speech, the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, said, in relation to foreign policy and defence issues:
"Surely we need first to address what is the threat. For example, who is the enemy, and where is he? Secondly, perhaps we should consider what are our interests, especially overseas, and our commitments and obligations".—[Official Report, 18/11/93; col. 6.]
In fact, his views were not far from the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, although perhaps the answers which the two noble Lords might give to the questions would be different.
I do not wish to embark on presenting the case for a full defence review, reviewing our world strategy as well as the arms which should be cut. I am not sufficiently expert, and in any case I have already spoken for 10 minutes. However, I suggest that the state of the world today should allow us a wholesale rethink of what our expensive defence budget is achieving. As my noble friend Lady Blackstone said, it is surely not necessary at present to keep a large body of men and heavy equipment in Germany. Despite the ominous picture which has been painted of Yeltsin's Russia by my noble friend Lord Kennet, Mr. Yeltsin and his army are in no position to mount a major land attack on us at the moment. In any case, there is no doubt that we would get plenty of warning in the extremely unlikely circumstance that that was his intention.
72
Our forces could be re-formed into highly mobile units ready for action, as has been pointed out by a number of other noble Lords, in peace-keeping operations anywhere in the world. There is a strong case for the permanent volunteer UN peace-keeping force mentioned by my noble friend. That would be much more effective than the present ad hoc, rather ill-assorted and sometimes bewildered troops which are gathered together in a hurry to perform United Nations tasks.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, said, trade is the very basis of our existence. We cannot have stable trading relationships with countries which are bankrupt or at war with themselves or with others. Sadly, one of our major export industries is the provision of sophisticated weaponry. We are second only to the United States in this. We have found to our cost how dangerous a trade that is, both because the weapons can be turned on us, and because they help to sustain small, medium and large wars which strangle and destroy trade and development. That situation was described very well by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn.
I am very pleased that the gracious Speech included a mention of the need to control the arms trade. Let us hope that action follows those words and that we take the lead internationally in curbing it. As my noble friend said, the Government must play a larger part in helping the defence industry to diversify and convert to peaceful activities, as has been done by other countries in Europe. Without that the industry will seek international markets, risking the disastrous results which we have seen.
Our overseas aid programme should be seen as an essential, far-sighted investment. If we can help impoverished countries to achieve a better life for their people, that will not only help to prevent expensive natural disasters overtaking them (which we then become involved in mopping up) but will enable them to assume their proper role in making the world a better and more prosperous place for all of us.
6.5 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I read in the newspapers that the Secretary of State had appointed a special committee to advise him personally on defence policy management. That seems, on the face of it, to be the expedient of a prudent man. I am sure that it has not escaped his notice that the nature of the advice that is likely to flow from that body will depend on the composition of the body itself. As the said composition was presumably decided by my right honourable friend in person, he will by that very act have decided in advance, whether knowingly or not I cannot tell, the kind of advice he is likely to receive. The net result therefore is likely to be the gaining of a little more time in which to make up his mind. If that is his aim, he has my heartfelt sympathy. However, I hope that he will reflect that the shelf life of a Tory defence Minister tends to be less than everlasting, and time is therefore of the essence.
I understand that the informal group—as it has been described—includes Field Marshal Sir Nigel Bagnall, the former Chief of the General Staff. He is quoted in

73
my newspaper as making two startlingly radical statements in the course of a single very short sentence. He says that the group's work is focused on value for money, and,
"we are not dealing in geopolitics".
I hope that geopolitics is the special study of authorities higher than an informal group. But what about the focus on value for money? With that statement we are back at a step in the sometimes acrimonious argument about whether the proposed defence cuts are, or were, Treasury led or Treasury driven. That is an ancient wrangle. It sprang up anew about the time of the publication of Options for Change. There is no need now to ask what it was all about. It was essentially a phoney argument. "Treasury driven" and "Treasury led" are nothing but slightly important sounding synonyms for the saving of public money—a meritorious cause, as most would probably agree. Therefore, why do I use the word "phoney"? For this reason. Except in one circumstance, there is never any good reason except the saving of money for cuts in the defence budget. That circumstance is the outbreak of peace at the end of a war.
When a nation has mobilised for war and the war ends, in victory or defeat, it must demobilise. Any nation which tried to keep its fighting forces intact in peacetime would invite full-scale mutiny and possibly even rebellion. In the so-called Cold War we did not mobilise. Therefore, when the Warsaw Pact collapsed we had no compulsive reason to demobilise. Our armed services were manned exclusively by volunteers putting up no clamour for release, still less for compulsive redundancy. In a time of high and growing unemployment there was no urgent cry for labour, no plea from the Treasury to be allowed to shell out hundreds of millions of pounds in unemployment benefit. What there was was a need and demand for economy. Of course the demand came, as it has to come, from the Treasury, and the bill fell with a sickening thud on the desk of the Secretary of State for Defence. What was he to do?
At this point, the scene cuts to this very Chamber four days ago. We are debating the Queen's Speech. After details of Her Majesty's globe-trotting programme, the very next sentence in that speech had to do exclusively with defence. It is always so. As defence of the realm is the first responsibility of Government, so defence comes first in the gracious Speech.
Who writes the gracious Speech, beginning with the statement of the Government's intentions regarding defence? It is, of course, the Prime Minister. However, if one were to call upon the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing Street, one would find a brass plate on the front door engraved with the words, "First Lord of the Treasury". I know that the Prime Minister is, in the words of Dod's Parliamentary Companion, not primarily responsible for the day-to-day working of the Treasury. I do not suppose that he is primarily responsible for the day to day working of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the National Health Service or any other department of state. However, that
74
does not mean that he is retained only for such ceremonial purposes as writing the Queen's Speech or laying wreaths at the Cenotaph.
Surely, the title of First Lord of the Treasury means more than the privilege of a brass plate. Has he no authority in the place? Does he visit it only by the courtesy of, or invitation from, the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Has he surrendered his portfolio to Portillo as a matter of punctilio? Is he neutral in the struggle between the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury?
I am reminded of the famous Punch cartoon in which the young officer gazes speechlessly at a squad of soldiers marching towards the edge of the cliff while the drill sergeant mutters in his ear, "For God's sake, say something to them, sir, even if it's only 'Goodbye'." As I see it now, the young subaltern has become a field officer. He is no longer a second lieutenant or ensign but a major. And who, or what, I wonder, is the drill sergeant? Of course, I exaggerate. Perhaps, in seeing with my mind's eye, I have gained the wrong sense. Perhaps I should be listening with my mind's ear. If I do so, I fancy that I catch the far away echo of the late John McCormack in one of his songs. In imagination I can almost hear that Irish tenor voice singing plaintively,
"Then why art thou silent,
Kathleen mavourneen".
Where does the Prime Minister, or the First Lord of the Treasury, stand in these matters? Why is he silent? I wonder whether the Minister is sufficiently in the confidence of our right honourable friend to give an inkling of the answer.
6.14 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I rise with humility to address the House for the first time. I should like to refer, with your indulgence, to matters concerning Latin America, an area in which, together with Africa, I have lived and worked for 10 years. For clarity, the region is comprised of all countries south of the Rio Grande in Mexico, Cuba and the Dominican Republic.
The United Kingdom's returns with the region are disproportionate to its direct investment programme. We are the second largest investor. However, we secured only 1.7 per cent. of visible trade in 1992 compared with 30 per cent. at the turn of the century. Perhaps of greater concern is the loss of market share over the past 10 years. I should like to see that situation reversed.
The association with Latin America is a strong one historically, beginning with involvement in various wars of independence, followed by large business interests up to the 1920s. However, after the last war, interest waned with our efforts concentrated in the Commonwealth countries.
Your Lordships will be aware, and pleased to hear, that after a series of military juntas, the region is now democratic, with the exception of Cuba. I was most interested to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, had to say about Cuba. Those countries now boast free elections, respect for the rule of law and relative freedom of the press. They are playing an increasingly more dominant international role.

75
In the past, Latin American governments adopted protectionist policies including nationalisation of multinationals. The 1980s produced default on international lending, including a moratorium. However, the Brady plan developed a solution for state debt stabilisation. I remind noble Lords that in considering the issues it is essential to differentiate between public and private debt.
Those countries now mostly have their house in order. They adhere to IMF proposals, with their markets and those of South East Asia being the only areas to show constant annual GDP growth. Chile, for example, achieved 10.4 per cent. growth in 1992. Those countries have abandoned an economic policy of protectionism and have undertaken free market philosophy.
Old problem areas such as the blocking of assets and remittance of profits, plus access to sufficient hard currency to meet obligations, have now largely been overcome. High monthly inflation figures, where they exist, are not an issue for international commerce, as tenders and payments are made in foreign currency.
The imports of those countries increased at an average of 17 per cent. in 1992, with Argentina increasing imports by 82 per cent. There have been considerable capital inflows amounting to 54 billion US dollars, in the past 12 months alone, Mexico being the main beneficiary. Exports for 1992 reached 126 billion US dollars, of which Brazil, to take an example, registered a 15.7 billion US dollars trade surplus last year.
The opportunities are now more pronounced than ever, with our products and services highly competitive due to the devaluation of sterling against the US dollar and the good will generated by the two-way exchange of visits by high ranking government Ministers.
Market size, with the creation of trading communities, now justifies involvement by the largest of our companies. There are many projects, both large and small, in the pipeline; and we have the knowledge and competitive edge to secure a part of them. Under-subscribed investment programmes exist, with pre-investment facilities available. Two examples of recent involvement are British Petroleum's exploration programme in Colombia and the purchase by British Gas of a major share in Metrogas, the Buenos Aires municipal gas company. I am assured that BP is keen to see UK companies enter the arena on the back of its success.
From your Lordships' House, what can we do to re-awaken more interest so that our industry can capture a section of that large market? We can alleviate fears caused by concern about, or ignorance of, bureaucratic procedures. We can encourage the learning of Spanish and Portuguese. We can explain the essential need to trade in those countries' backyard; we can encourage our senior managers to visit the region regularly. We must persuade the Export Credits Guarantee Department to reconsider rates for the region. Why, for example, are rates as high as 14 per cent. for Argentina when exporters in Germany, Italy, France and the United States obtain similar coverage for 5 per cent. to 8 per cent? That can make all the difference between success and failure.
76
In addition, it is essential that important issues are understood by both parties, thereby creating a harmonious relationship. On the other side of the Atlantic, the single market is seen as a source of concern. Subsidies, protectionism by industrialised nations, and the Community agricultural policy are considered to have potentially disastrous effects for our Latin friends. We are being looked towards to champion these causes within the European Union.
Our concerns are the need for Latin countries to consolidate in areas as far-ranging as investment in agriculture, health and housing, to education and training. Social problems connected with poverty need to be addressed, with environmental issues also high on the agenda.
I end with the following observation. We must make every effort to trade out of recession, to open our minds to new frontiers and to understand that Latin American markets are open to everybody. If the United Kingdom's percentage share of world invisible exports, currently running at 5.2 per cent., were applied to Latin America, this country would increase its exports by £3.6 billion. That would cut our visible balance of trade deficit from £13.5 billion to around £10 billion.
Our country is held in high esteem, my Lords, and our expertise must now be brought to bear.
6.22 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is also a "first time" for me today. It is the first time I have had the opportunity to thank and congratulate the maker of a maiden speech on behalf of all your Lordships. I do so with great pleasure, because both in the way the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, developed his theme and in the manner of putting it across, I believe that he spoke in the best traditions of your Lordships' House. I am sure I speak for you all in saying that we hope we will hear from him, as also from my noble friend Lord Chesham, on many future occasions.
At the outset of today's debate, my noble friend Lady Chalker referred to the changes and challenges that we face throughout the world. This theme has been reiterated by other speakers. I too am conscious that my more specific remarks should be set in that wider context of a rapidly changing and increasingly interdependent world; moreover, a world in which the speed of communications seems to make us all more aware and perhaps more immediately affected by those changes—sometimes perhaps even overwhelmed by the sheer scale of it all.
It is one thing to consider matters within our historical, cultural and even linguistic perspective, where at least we are familiar with the way in which events develop and institutions evolve. It is quite another to understand what is happening in parts of the world which have for a long time been cut off and are remote and inward-looking. I say this as a preliminary, since I have just returned from a visit to central Asia, where, among the beautiful and ancient buildings of Samarkand and Bukhara and other places, it was evident that change was very much in the air, with the introduction of a new national currency to replace the rouble being just one rather awkward—awkward for me

77
as a visitor—manifestation of that. I hope that the reference of my noble friend Lady Chalker to Russia and the Know How Fund stretches to the newly independent states to the east of Russia.
As another preliminary, but this time closer to home, I welcome those parts of the Queen's speech which outline the Government's intentions in the post-Maastricht phase. I feel strongly about the development of our co-ordinated policies with our European partners, particularly in terms of the enlargement of the European Union, which I feel sure will progress during the coming year with the continuing full support of the British Government. I certainly intend to do my bit, as a member of the parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe and the Western European Union, to ensure that our activities and relationships in the wider Europe are reinforced and fully appreciated.
However, it is on Latin America that I too wish to concentrate my remarks. Since completing a post-graduate year studying international law and economics in Ecuador, now nearly 30 years ago, I have maintained an ongoing interest and involvement in the region, which has certainly had its share of changes during that period. Latin America comprises 7 per cent. of the world's land mass and 10 per cent. of its population; and the countries of Latin America are poised and ready to look outwards and to participate in world events not only in matters of trade but also in the defence area, fully recognising their commitments in and to the United Nations. I believe that we neglect the vitality of that region at our peril and so I was delighted to hear what the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said and to see the way he raised this as a matter high on his personal agenda as well as in our national interest. I was delighted too that my noble friend Lady Young has been able to give us the benefit of her recent experience in Cuba. I hope very much that the Government will respond to the suggestions that she made.
Given the successful visits made by the President of Mexico last year and the Presidents of Uruguay and Colombia earlier this year, together with the renewal of bilateral links in trade and investment that flowed as a result of those visits, I was a little disappointed that the Queen's Speech did not reveal the promise of a visit from another Latin American head of state. But perhaps I fall into error on this, because it does not necessarily preclude a possible official, as opposed to a state, visit. I venture to say in this context, however, that it would certainly give me and I believe many others with a similar interest a great deal of pleasure to see the President of Argentina here, in full recognition of the excellent and warm relations which have been re-established between us after our falling-out over what was referred to by the Argentine Foreign Minister on a recent visit to London as,
"a certain discrepancy in the South Atlantic".
Argentina is a country which in January 1991 had an inflation rate of 767.8 per cent. In January of this year it was down to 15 per cent. and has continued to decrease. That is a remarkable achievement. It has restructured its 29 billion dollar public debt, with the support of the World Bank, the IMF and the
78
Inter-American Development Bank. This, together with similar debt agreements concluded by Chile, Mexico, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Uruguay and Venezuela, is yet another step forward in resolving the developing world's debt crises.
The GDP growth rate in Argentina over the last year was the fastest in a decade, and since Argentina launched its privatisation programme some four years ago it has raised 18 billion dollars by selling off a long list of public enterprises from petrochemical businesses to grain handling and indeed military hardware ventures. British advisers and expertise have been employed in this process—indeed against stiff competition—and many British companies have followed up, making investments and becoming involved in joint ventures and other business and industrial opportunities, some of which were again referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. It is extremely encouraging to note that there has been a 47 per cent. rise in British exports to Argentina over the past few years.
I quote Argentina in particular in case any lingering doubts remain about our relationship as a result of that "discrepancy in the South Atlantic"; also, more happily, because I am due to attend the fourth Argentine-British conference to be held in Mendoza next April as part of a delegation to be led by my noble friend Lord Montgomery. As a result I have the problems and successes experienced there very much to the forefront of my mind.
A similar pattern to that presented in Argentina's success story can be seen in most other Latin American countries. It can even be seen in Brazil, in spite of some recent setbacks there. All the countries of Latin America are rich in resources. All have tackled and succeeded (in varying degrees, admittedly) in sorting out their economies. Additionally, there is the development not only of the North American free trade area that has been referred to, but of MERCOSUR, which involves Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. I believe, as has been said, that the opportunities and confidence that we should feel in doing more in the region must be emphasised again and again. Moreover, democratic forms of government have been established and re-established throughout the continent. I believe the next elections—there seem to be a regular spate of elections throughout Latin America—are due in Venezuela at the end of this year.
It is an interesting and little known fact that the United Kingdom is still the leading European investor in Latin America, although our exports overall have remained fairly static over the past few years. There is indeed room for improvement. There are many therefore who recognise that it is in the interests of us all to foster the stability and prosperity of the region: these include such groups as the All Party Latin American Parliamentary Group, the various bilateral parliamentary groups with contacts with Latin America, the members of Canning House, and the many other bilateral groups which are involved. Not least, there is the Foreign Office. I feel sure that the collective Foreign Office heart is in the right place. Nevertheless, I warmly support my noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein

79
who, in moving the humble Address, advocated a review of foreign policy. I do so in the conviction that such a review would highlight the need for us to prioritise and concentrate our efforts on Latin America.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, since our last debate on a similar occasion 18 months ago, the international scene has been extremely active. Many of the events that have taken place can he traced back to the prolonged thaw which has followed the end of the Cold War. Much of what has occurred is undoubtedly beneficial. Some of the favourable developments have already been mentioned in our debate this afternoon: in South Africa, for example; and the agreement between Israel and the PLO. I propose to concentrate on the other side of the coin, on subjects where the outlook is less promising, which demand our careful and urgent attention.
Three issues concern me: first, the stability in the future of the wider Europe; secondly, the next steps in European Union; and thirdly, the work of the humanitarian agencies of the United Nations. I shall say something briefly about each of those.
On European security, I believe that the time has come when we need to consider a wholly different approach. My suggestion is that we should take the initiative in proposing a collective treaty on European security, covering the principal states throughout the continent. Why do we need such a treaty? We need it because there has been a fundamental change in European affairs. The end of the Cold War and the unification of Germany have produced a completely new political situation in Europe. Germany is now the centre. It is larger than France, Britain or Italy in terms of population and power. It is much larger and stronger than its neighbours immediately to the east. German policy is bound to change in recognition of those facts, away from its preoccupation with its relationship with France to a wider and more balanced view of the future. The move of the capital from Bonn to Berlin at the end of this decade will be a part of that process and perhaps its symbol.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who spoke earlier on part of this subject, I do not look on this process in a negative way. We have to recognise facts. The reasons for siting the European Monetary Institute in Frankfurt rather than in this country were not only the result of the remarks made in Parliament about our relationship with Germany. They also had to do with the strength of the Bundesbank as an independent central bank and the strength of the German currency over a long period. Also, the democratic institutions of Germany are as solid as any in the western world; they are stronger than some and are an example for us to admire. German ties and trade with its eastern neighbours are growing, and the contribution that Germany makes to their prosperity is already considerable. But to the east there is uncertainty and fluidity. What we need is a treaty framework to accommodate the fundamental changes which are taking place, to encourage the countries of eastern Europe to follow a peaceful path and to provide a partnership which can be mobilised to settle disputes. It
80
is very desirable to provide practical reassurance and friendship to the states of central and eastern Europe, which lack any multilateral framework of their own following the demise of the Warsaw Pact.
Some have suggested that we should refashion NATO for that purpose by using the North Atlantic Co-operation Council. But I do not believe that that will work, the main reason being that NATO was designed as a collective organisation for the defence of the West and the treaty cannot be refashioned so fundamentally. Equally, the European Union is more focused on its own internal and institutional development. Although Maastricht has given us a new foreign policy pillar, that is more likely to be useful in overcoming the traditional neutrality of the EFTA members than it is in providing reassurance to the East. The CSCE is too large and loose to help us much in specific issues affecting the security and sovereignty of states. Perhaps the CSCE has had its day, important though it was.
I suggest therefore that the treaties which exist were written for quite different purposes from those of which I speak and that they point in the wrong direction. Now a fresh course of bricks is needed for the European edifice. The underlying purpose would be to define broad principles in a multilateral treaty: to bury past enmities; to make commitments to peace; to give reassurance to its members; and to provide a framework for the settlement of disputes, the likely ones being about frontiers and arising from rivalries between ethnic minorities. At the moment, we have no effective means of dealing with such disputes. I am thinking of a treaty, not another multilateral body, which would engage the political authority of all its signatories. It would perhaps be open to the United States and Canada to be parties to such a treaty if they so chose.
To judge by what I have read in the press, the Government prefer to use the European Union for that process. I myself do not believe that it will meet the case. There are two reasons. First, the Union's relations with the states of eastern Europe will tend to be bilateral between the Union on the one hand and the individual east European state on the other. I am thinking of a broader multilateral treaty based on principles. The chapter on foreign policy in the Maastricht Treaty does not state principles. Secondly, arrangements made by the Union with each state will inevitably be seen in the context of that country's ultimate ambitions to join the Union. I do not believe that that would make it possible to use the Union effectively as a means of settling urgent political issues where the influence of other European states also needs to be engaged.
The second issue that concerns me is the likely development of the European Union over the next few months. Like many other people, I hoped that the ratification of the Treaty of Maastricht would lead to a calmer atmosphere in western Europe. Unfortunately, the prolonged and acrimonious debate that took place over ratification has made that very unlikely. Some of our partners may now seek to overcome the delay and loss of morale by embarking on a rapid advance towards stage three of economic and monetary union. The dangers are obvious. Once again an economic objective, which is perhaps desirable but difficult to achieve at the

81
best of times, would be pursued for largely political reasons. It would not be surprising if our own Government choose to have no part in such manoeuvres and pour cold water on them, relying on our opt-out clauses in the treaty.
I believe that such a reaction would be perhaps unfortunate and certainly unnecessary in the near future. After all, there is nothing wrong in themselves with the convergence clauses of the treaty in the current stage. Indeed they are a necessary part of the financial restraints of which we ourselves stand in need and about which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will no doubt tell us in a few days' time.
It also concerns me that we should relegate ourselves to the "also rans"—team B in the European Union—by insisting that our opt-out clauses are not merely a safeguard but are positively virtuous. I have always believed that those opt-out clauses carry a clear danger; namely, the creation of a two-tier Community. Self-relegation to the second division is not to my mind a desirable or indeed a safe policy.
The third issue that I wish to mention concerns the humanitarian work of the United Nations. I must declare an interest as chairman of the United Nations Children's Fund in this country. Here too we see the effects of the end of the Cold War. The Security Council was unable to authorise peacemaking operations for 30 years after the end of the Congo crisis in 1960, and the humanitarian agencies of the United Nations were perceived as politically neutral in nearly every country of the world because the United Nations as a whole was non-interventionist in the main. That situation has now changed very much. The more active role of the United Nations in Somalia and Yugoslavia can make the work of those agencies more difficult because the Security Council has authorised the presence and activity of military forces on the ground. We now have the benefit of some painful experience. We should consider rather carefully our motives and objectives in this area in the future.
The results are perplexing. In Somalia remarkable progress has been achieved in terms of ending disease, famine and malnutrition—not that one reads about such matters in the press but such is the case—whereas the political results of the mission have proved an embarrassing failure. So far in Yugoslavia the results have proved quite different. The humanitarian work has accomplished much in the past but may now be less positive because of the more cautious policy of the military contingents of the United Nations on the ground.
I do not wish to suggest that there is some magic formula to resolve the differences. There is not. Nor should we minimise the good work that has been done or the active support that our own Government have provided, which I acknowledge with gratitude. But we need to be as clear as possible about our objectives at the beginning of such operations. I have much sympathy with the Foreign Secretary's remark about the "do something" school of thought. The trouble is that we have done something, in fact more than a little
82
something, in both Somalia and Yugoslavia. We have ended up in two situations which are totally different from our expectation and hope.
I suggest that there is an underlying choice that we often have to make. What is the object of the mission? Is it to save lives or is it to solve a problem? Ideally we should like to do both, but sometimes it is not possible, and if so it may be better to acknowledge it at the outset. After all, saving lives is a worthy mission, even if it is less ambitious in political terms. Perhaps we have yet to realise that we may have to spend a few lives in order to save many.
Those are the three issues that I wish to put before your Lordships. I believe them all to be matters of some importance.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I should like to use as a brief text some words which come from the gracious Speech:
"My Government will attach particular importance to implementing the new common foreign and security policy".
I can think of no more disastrous prescription. We have before our eyes already—this matter was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, and other speakers—a perfect example of what happens when the so-called European Union has a foreign policy. We have it in Bosnia. We have it in massacre, aggression, rape and starvation. Up to today the European Community has totally failed. The words spoken today in Luxembourg by the Foreign Secretary get us no further. Such a policy has nothing to offer a major part of Europe.
The reason is perfectly simple and everybody knows it. The reason is that national states still exist. They have their own policies and their own priorities. They act upon them and they are likely to continue to do so. Therefore it is incumbent upon Her Majesty's Government to have their own foreign policy. Otherwise, we get into the position, which was not mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, in which we are accused of genocide by the Bosnian Moslems. It is not Britain which has committed genocide in Bosnia; it is the countries of Serbia and Croatia that have been allowed by their friends to pursue such policies, which Britain is in no position to prevent. Nevertheless, because we take responsibility for a European policy, we are picked on by the Bosnian Moslems as the authors of their misfortune. Why should we believe that our policies and those of the French or the Germans should be identical?
Let me offer another illustration of my point, using a less important frame. In this country we are committed to spending a great deal of public money on preserving the life of Mr. Salman Rushdie who is threatened by agents of the Iranian Government and particularly the Iranian intelligence service. The leader of that intelligence service has quite recently been received with honour in the German capital. Germany feels—it may have very good reason—that its good relations with Iran are more important than what happens to a stray scribbler in this country or his publishers in Norway or elsewhere.

83
Over and over again one can see this. But there are other ways of looking at it. There is, of course, the way which is accepted by the two parties in opposition. The Liberal Democrats are wholly devoted to creating a single European state or united states of Europe. Indeed, their devotion is such that I sometimes feel that they are more like one of these American cults. If M. Delors were to say that the way to forward the cause of Europe is for all Liberal Democrats to commit suicide, they would queue up for hemlock.
The Labour Party is perhaps a little more cautious, but we understand that Mr. John Smith has signed a manifesto for the forthcoming European elections committing the Labour Party to a programme which has been largely dictated externally. It has been said by Mr. Smith's friends in the press that he did not in fact appreciate quite how far that document went into detail—in which case he must be the only Scots lawyer ever to have signed on the dotted line without reading the small print. But my concern is not with parties which are out of office, and indeed, I hope, will never be in office; my concern is with Her Majesty's Government.
What do Her Majesty's Government propose? In the famous or, as it would be styled on the Continent, notorious article by the Prime Minister in the Economist he points to a possible development of a future Europe and perhaps to developments not altogether far from the very interesting ideas for new security treaties, for instance, which were advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. The only difficulty there is that the proposals he has in mind—the idea of a broader and looser Europe—are wholly incommensurate with the opinion of the other major members of the European Community. Therefore, the question the Government have to answer is not whether they have good policies but whether those policies have any hope of success. Can we talk about being at the heart of Europe when the heart of Europe is a combination between France and Germany? That is what the European Community is all about.
The only way to demonstrate this point is to look at British policy as it is looked at from abroad and from those countries in particular. I would recommend to your Lordships the reading of the recently published diaries of M. Jacques Attali, not relating to his period in the marble halls in the City of London but when he was the principal adviser and aid to President Mitterrand in the first five years of Mitterrand's term as President. He was, to put it one way, the Sarah Hogg of the Elysée at the time. The diaries have the great merit of having also been submitted to President Mitterrand himself—and he did not object to their publication. One must therefore assume that, since they contain long extracts from Mitterrand's conversations with his own domestic political friends and with foreign statesmen, they are roughly faithful to his general outlook, even if he is not obliged to confirm every detail. They include records of President Mitterrand's meetings with the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, with Chancellor Schmidt and with Chancellor Kohl, as well as his meetings with world leaders in the United States, Japan and so forth—the Group of Seven.
84
What comes out, I think unanswerably—I challenge anyone who has read the diaries not to agree—is that there was no question in the mind of President Mitterrand, still less of Chancellors Schmidt and Kohl, that Britain was an equal partner in such a union. It was clear that Britain was a useful adjunct in some respects but that in the last resort what really counted—they say this quite openly again and again—was the mutual relations of France and Germany. Therefore, to talk about being at the heart of Europe is like saying, "I am going to be a wedding guest at the heart of a wedding". If there is a bride and a bridegroom, where else can one be but at the heart of a wedding?
There is another very important point which is related to a point raised by a number of noble Lords. I refer to the important question of the GATT. I have no doubt that when we come to discuss economics later in the week more will be said on that score. But if one reads M. Attali's diaries—this confirms, after all, evidence from many other sources—it is inconceivable that the French could possibly do anything but object to a system of world-wide free trade when President Mitterrand constantly reaffirms the importance of protection, and goes further and constantly refers to the influence of the United States exercised through a world free trade system as something inimical to the interests of Europe. As we are committed—I believe this still to be true, and it was pointed out in relation to defence by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—to wishing to keep the United States as involved in our affairs as is possible, given the many changes that are going on in that country as well, it is inconceivable that the European Union can form a framework within which we can usefully try to forward a foreign policy.
Finally on that point, there is the question of the newly liberated former members of the Warsaw Pact in eastern Europe, an issue referred to in the very important speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. Anyone who looks at their situation—we have had a great many expert accounts in journals, newspapers and so forth—says that, if they are to flourish, they require not aid, or even know-how, but trade. Bohemia, after all, was a country of civilisation second to none in Europe more than a thousand years ago. They are not third world countries to which we need to give the elements of civilised living. They need to be able to sell their products. They do not wish to be, and rightly do not wish to be, dependent on handouts. What does the European Community do every time one of those countries finds something which it thinks it can usefully sell abroad? It puts up the barriers against it. Would it not be better if we were able to have our own economic relations with those countries and give them the assistance which providing a market would offer?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why, in that case, those countries are so anxious to join the European Economic Community?
Lord Beloff: My Lords, they are anxious to join because they feel that, if they were allowed in, they would be part of it. Therefore, they would enjoy the

85
comparative freedom of the single market. But as they are being kept out for another decade, they do not wish to starve in the interim, and quite rightly.
Beyond that there is the even greater importance of what happens in the former Soviet Union. That was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. I am sorry that, with so much expertise on Latin America, we did not hear a little more about the former Soviet Central Asia from my noble friend Lady Hooper. Ukraine is a large, important and potentially wealthy country, still suffering under virtually unchanged communist rule. Another such is Russia itself. We had a great lecture on Russia from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who is not in his place. He has rather a habit of giving us lectures on important and interesting subjects, often fallaciously presented, and then disappearing before one can answer him. I do not know whether Mr. Yeltsin is quite the villain that he was depicted. He sounded to me more like Genghis Khan than anyone else I can think of historically. I believe that the noble Lord may be wrong about that. He may have been taken in a little too easily by the propaganda in favour of the so-called Russian Parliament which Mr. Yeltsin dissolved and which the noble Lord was wrong in assuming was a democratically elected assembly, since it was elected at a time when the Communist Party had a political monopoly.
However, we should concentrate on that, and it is important. Again, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, is right. The difficulty is that we shall get a lot more argument about this or that aspect of the European Community and about its failure to fulfil the obligations of the GATT. We shall get all kinds of trivia compared with the great issues on which we need to concentrate and solve, which are the real results of the break-up of the Soviet Union and of what is sometimes referred to, with some degree of illusion, as the end of the Cold War.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I do not intend to follow too far the submissions of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, as to whether there should be Her Majesty's Opposition as well as Her Majesty's Government. However, I follow with a degree of sympathy some of his submissions as regards the European Community.
I wish first to congratulate both maiden speakers on the content of their speeches and on the manner in which they submitted them to your Lordships' House. Much of the material which I thought to submit to your Lordships' House has already been given in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. Very often on matters of foreign affairs our thoughts run similarly and they did so again today.
I was very pleased to hear and I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary intends to visit the Middle East. I hope that he will give some attention to the Syrian problem, which must be examined bearing in mind that the Israeli Prime Minister and Yasser Arafat have created a remarkable base. It is a remarkable thing that they have done. With the help of Britain, the United
86
States and the United Nations, I believe that the endeavours of the Israeli Prime Minister and Yasser Arafat can lead to a lasting peace in the Middle East.
I hope too that at some time the Government will look at the problem of Albania. It is going through a pretty tough time. I ask the Government to examine the situation. There are plenty of Members on both sides of this House who can help them in trying to understand the cruel situation in that country.
Foreign affairs and defence must be linked at all times. If we are careless about our defence we may as a result weaken our foreign policy. Our concern for the free world and the British Commonwealth of nations may be threatened. I have always taken the view that there must be no fudging over the defence budget. Of course, the Treasury has an important role. But some of the important newspapers of this country are submitting that there is an argument going on between the Government and the Treasury. The Treasury must not have such power that it can take on any British government. I hope that neither the Treasury nor any other department of state will take any major decisions, because our defence is so vital that all departments and Ministers must work together.
If ever there was an example of us and the United Nations not doing a job properly it is that in the Gulf. That is such an example that one can hardly believe that one of the biggest contributions to winning the Gulf War was made through the remarkable endeavours of our Royal Air Force. Even the Americans concede that argument. But what has it been for? Only a few weeks ago, Saddam Hussein sent troops into Kuwait. He has already murdered hundreds of the prisoners whom he had taken. I beg the House to listen to this: I have been reliably informed that Saddam Hussein has recently caused an Iraqi flag to be flown in Kuwait and therefore the whole atmosphere in that area is very shaky.
The other absolute disgrace as regards the abominable behaviour of this character is the suffering of the Marsh Arabs. I hope that these matters will be taken into consideration as well as the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in his references to Bosnia. It seems incredible that about 18 months ago I was, if not howled down, rebuked in this House for saying that we should see to it that the situation in Bosnia was taken over by the United Nations before it was too late.
I remember being a member of a commission which visited Yugoslavia some time ago. The noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, was another member. I remember him saying to us then as regards the problems in what used to be Yugoslavia that, if we were not careful and if we rushed with democracy, we would find ourselves in a great deal of trouble.
I believe that that is now a very important issue that we have to look at. I believe too that we should have the highest level of military and technical ability which must be maintained throughout all our forces, including the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force. I hope that we shall also have intelligent co-operation with the Treasury as regards defence essentials. The Government might consider setting up a specialist committee to look at the defence of our country.

87
I also believe that we should honour our servicemen and women by maintaining up-to-date weaponry. What are equally important too are decent pay and conditions, for a disgruntled navy and army is something we should wish to avoid and we must avoid. I hope that that aspect of the matter will be looked at by our Government.
Another matter I ask the Government to think about, but which I do not expect them to answer tonight, is the submission made by the Royal British Legion concerning our ex-servicemen. They are asking for some kind of commission to look at some of the problems not of older ex-servicemen such as myself but of younger ex-servicemen and women who, when discharged, come home to discover very many difficulties which they never believed they would have. We should honour our forces and never forget that we should always seek negotiation before we use force. We must remember Winston Churchill's remarkable statement that jaw jaw is better than war war.
I hope too that high level military representatives will work with the specialist industries. That is probably already taking place—I do not know—but I believe that representatives from our three forces should be working in conjunction with—almost hand in hand with—the industries that supply them with what they need to defend this island. I believe that NATO and the United Nations should also give closer consideration to that.
I hope too that we shall consider the positions not only of our people who work in NATO and the United Nations, but of our servicemen whom I have already mentioned. When they return home after serving their country, they should be met not with special treatment but with generous appreciation of the real difficulties that some of them face. I do not have time to go into that, but it is something that we in the Royal British Legion know about because those servicemen come to us. The Legion wishes and believes that our Government will take time out to consider the submission that I am making.
I turn now to nuclear weapons. I have to say this because I feel strongly about them: I wish that there was some way of abolishing nuclear weapons, but, until they can be abolished, I believe that it would be extremely foolhardy if we were to take unilateral action to rid ourselves of our nuclear weapons. We must not take that risk. There is another good reason for not doing that because, as Aneurin Bevan once said, you cannot send a British Foreign Secretary naked into the conference chamber.
Folly is often more cruel in the consequence than is malice in the intent. Our nation has always played and (perhaps with the United States and the Commonwealth) will always play a vital role in defending the free world. We must bear that constantly in mind. It is no good thinking that communism has disappeared because it no longer exists in one part of Europe. It is lingering everywhere to reappear and to challenge freedom and decency. We need first-class forces in case it ever returns to threaten us. In conclusion, therefore, in defending our own country we must at all times also make our contribution to defending a free world. I hope that this country of ours will continue to set an example to all mankind.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, I find my sympathy at this point flowing strongly towards my noble friend Lord Cranborne, who will soon have to answer this debate. Having listened already to 18 splendid speeches on a variety of topics, he now has to endure one from me on another topic and still has to face—although the prospect cannot be anything but pleasant to him—another 11 speeches on a variety of assorted topics. All that is before we shall have the pleasure of listening to his reply, to which I greatly look forward.
Ever since hostilities began in the former Yugoslavia I have believed that there are countless people in this country and all over the world who have longed to do something to lessen in some way the suffering which seems to grow no less as the months go by. Most of the more robust developments which have been suggested and examined, including military intervention, air strikes or the dispatch of arms, seem likely to increase bloodshed and multiply suffering, as well as adding to the hazards of the effort to bring relief, which the United Nations is carrying out with determination and with the splendid and courageous assistance of forces from this country.
A number of people who know about conditions in the former Yugoslavia have persuaded me that we in this country could do much more to help those who have been and who are being injured in the conflict. They have drawn my attention to those who have suffered head and brain injuries. I have no doubt that there is much room for improvement in their care. However, I have become particularly concerned about the problems of those who have lost limbs either as a direct result of the struggle or (particularly in the war zones of Bosnia) in order to avoid the risk of gangrene after relatively minor injuries.
Earlier this year I made an approach to my noble friend Lady Chalker. I was met, as I had expected, with sympathy and understanding, but my noble friend at that time strongly emphasised the need to build on existing prosthetic services in various parts of the former Yugoslavia. I acknowledge the wisdom of that advice because the evacuation of severely wounded people, their rehabilitation in a foreign land and their eventual resettlement in their own country can present many problems which are not hard to understand.
Nonetheless, rehabilitation in the republics of the former Yugoslavia has problems of its own. First, in Ljubljana, at the best institute in the whole of the country, a shortage of trained prosthetists, who are needed to fit the artificial limbs, has been made acute by the increased demands made upon them. In addition, neither at Zagreb nor elsewhere in Croatia is there satisfactory training for prosthetists and no artificial limbs at all are produced in the whole of that republic. In Sarajevo, both artificial limbs and orthopaedic aids are produced, but there is a long delay in the delivery of the materials that are needed to make them. Finally, in Belgrade, where the aids are turned out in substantial quantities, only a small proportion of the prosthetists needed to fit them are trained to international standards.

89
Leaving the individual centres and looking at the country as a whole, against the figure in a recent report by the United Nations which suggested a total of 4,000 war victims who had lost limbs, the rehabilitation services, especially in Croatia and Bosnia, are sadly in danger of being overwhelmed. I have become convinced that at least a proportion of those patients must be got out and that their treatment abroad can alone save the situation.
Fortunately, many countries have offered hospital places. The same United Nations report recorded an offer by Turkey of 1,000 places; another by Italy of about 450 places, but an offer by Britain of 21. Perhaps that modest offer is not the whole reason for the relatively indifferent performance by this country because one hospital in London, the Royal Masonic in the west of London, made ready to receive six months ago 10 children without limbs. They are still not listed for evacuation.
This leads me to ask my noble friend a number of questions of which I have given him earlier notice and which I hope he will consider with sympathy. First, is it possible to make more use of non-governmental organisations and perhaps entrust to one or two which merit confidence the kind of responsibility that is given to aid agencies in relation to disaster relief? Secondly, can we get on, without delay, and bring small numbers of patients here for treatment, and agree that the costs will be met either by the Department of Health or the ODA, or both? Thirdly, can we open up the possibility for one or more prosthetic companies in Britain to carry out work which will not only increase their expertise but also enhance their ability to meet wider commercial opportunities in the future?
Fourthly, is it possible to arrange transport through the International Organisation for Migration (the IOM) with a return guaranteed to a place of safety as close as possible to the patient's home? Fifthly, are there not ways to involve this country more closely in the urgent task of training more prosthetists and physiotherapists and expanding the facilities for producing artificial limbs? Finally, when patients return after rehabilitation in Britain, is it not important to encourage in various places the development of expert centres to care for the people who need further help and advice?
I have said probably about enough, but there is one project, supported by expert authority in this country, which illustrates the procedural difficulties which I hope my noble friend will use his influence to remove. Once patients have been identified, and invited individually for care in Britain, it is vital in many cases that valuable days and weeks are not lost before treatment begins. So will my noble friend try to ensure that firm procedures are established between, on the one side, the hosts inviting the patients, and, on the other, the IOM in London and Zagreb? Equally important is the development of proper machinery of co-operation among the Foreign Office, the ODA and the Department of Health. I hope sincerely that my noble friend will share my view that the development of that co-operation has become urgently necessary.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Moore of Wolvercote: My Lords, the gracious Speech states:
"My Government will play an active part in the Commonwealth".
That is good news. I should like at this point to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, on an interesting maiden speech. I am delighted to see that we apparently have in the House another supporter of the Commonwealth. One of the most important contributions Britain makes to international understanding and co-operation is through that unique body, comprising 50 nations—the Commonwealth. Yet in the seven years that I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, we have debated the Commonwealth just once—for a miserable two and a half hours three years ago. That seemed to show that the British Government are not interested in the Commonwealth. Indeed, the Government's attitude towards the Commonwealth was illustrated starkly in last year's Departmental Report of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Your Lordships will note the title.
In its statement of the objectives of British diplomatic policy, the report omitted any reference to the Commonwealth. One began to wonder whether the Government attached any importance at all to the Commonwealth. I am glad to say, however, that there has been evidence recently of what I hope is a change of heart on the part of the Government. There have been a number of encouraging signs. First, there was the speech last month by the Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the English Speaking Union. That was a realistic and constructive appraisal of the significance of the Commonwealth for Britain and for the world.
Also last month there appeared a publication by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office entitled Britain and the Commonwealth, a first-class piece of work which will be invaluable for educational purposes in schools and universities. And the Departmental Report of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for 1993 does now state, as one of the first basic aims of Britain's foreign policy:
"To maintain and foster the special relationship we share with Commonwealth partners, in an association which can play a constructive and moderating role in world affairs".
That is very well put, if I may say so.
I was delighted to see that the Prime Minister played such an important part in the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Cyprus when he insisted that the conference should concentrate on producing constructive initiatives, notably over the GATT and South Africa. I was glad to hear the Minister refer to that matter. It is heartening to see the Commonwealth's great potential for international co-operation being put to such valuable, practical effect.
In the light of that evidence of real interest by the Government in the Commonwealth it was shattering to be told that they intend in two years' time to withdraw entirely their financial support for the Commonwealth Institute. I am sorry that I was unable to be present for the Question about that issue asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, but I have to say that I found the Minister's

91
Answer most disappointing. The Commonwealth Institute is by far the most important body in Britain for educating our schoolchildren about the Commonwealth, and the Government's £2.9 million was well spent. So I have to ask myself: why have the Government taken that extraordinary decision? As their main reason, the Government give the reduction in the number of visitors to the Commonwealth Institute, to which I would reply, "Yes, the number of visitors did drop as a result of financial and curriculum restraints on educational visits by schools, but under the excellent new director general, the numbers have begun to rise again, and, in any case, 300,000 visitors a year, including 50,000 school children hardly indicates any lack of interest".
One must remember also that the institute's work is not merely that of receiving visitors. It plays an important role in taking the message about the Commonwealth out to the schools and beyond to the general public. I say to the Government that it is vital that the Commonwealth Institute should not close. I implore them to show that their commitment to the Commonwealth is genuine by reconsidering their decision to withdraw financial support.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I intend to confine my remarks to the situation in Poland and central Europe and their relationship to the EC and NATO, so I shall not be following, I am afraid, the noble Lord, Lord Moore, but in this debate we rarely follow one another. As I see it, Western Europe is today presented with an opportunity. Some people would call it a window of opportunity, and that is a good expression. Windows of opportunity do not open often. They are liable to be closed quickly if the opportunity is missed. Unfortunately people, especially certain kinds of officials in offices, tend to look the other way when the windows open and the opportunities present themselves. A great deal is lost irreversibly because of that blindness.
Since 1989, Russia has withdrawn from all the areas she occupied for 44 years or more. President Yeltsin has affirmed that he has no intention of subjecting those countries again, but we must look at the present situation in broader terms than by merely accepting the assurances of one man who may not be in power for long. We should look at Russia's history over the past 300 years, because this sort of thing has happened before. We must realise that the possibility exists that Russia will try to regain what she has lost. The process is already observable in the Caucasus, and, as I understand it, Byelorussia is only nominally independent. We should remember that Lenin gave independence to all the nations of the former Russian empire only to reconquer them as part of his new Soviet Union. It might interest your Lordships if I were to quote from a letter written in 1856 shortly after the Crimean War by Lord Stratford who was then British Ambassador in Constantinople. He wrote:
"Nicholas's Russia is to all appearances on its knees, but the Russia of nature is still in its growth, shorn of its most forward branches but capable of shooting into greater luxuriance at no distant period".
"Plus ¢a change, plus c' est la même chose"!
92
Now, more so than in 1918, we have an opportunity to integrate the ancient nations of Europe from the Atlantic to the Bug into a system of collective security. I do not believe that we should miss that.
So, with regard to Russia, I say that if she should consider reoccupying central Europe we should not tolerate it. I do not belittle Russia's concern about her security—or, indeed, the concern of any other country about its security—but I say that Russia ought to look at her own history and realise that for three centuries she has threatened the security of her neighbours.
In that context, I do not know whether my noble friend the Minister has read the will of Peter the Great. If he has not done so I recommend it to him as essential reading and I can supply him with a copy. The Tsarist state and the Communist state adhered closely to Peter's will and it is in my view one of the most revealing and prophetic documents in history.
The notion pedalled by, among others, The Times that "the Russian military has a paranoia about being encircled by its foes" ought to be seen in the light of past Russian imperialism. If we pander to this paranoia we are endangering the security of countries from the Baltic to the Sea of Japan, which have more reason to understand Russia's long-term policies than we have. We are also in danger in western Europe itself because who can tell whether the next wave of Russian advance will stop in central Germany? And if we listen to nonsense about "encirclement" we should remember that that was precisely the word used by Nazi Germany to justify its policy of expansion.
If I were alone in supporting the inclusion of Poland, the Czech republic, Hungary and Slovakia in NATO and in an enlarged EC I should hardly dare to put such a notion to a body of people as experienced and knowledgeable as your Lordships. I was therefore happy to see an article in the Daily Telegraph by Henry Kissinger advocating just that. There was also an article in the Spectator on 6th November written by the director of studies at the Royal United Services institute, Mr. Jonathan Eyal, which I recommend to my noble friend the Minister in addition to the will of Peter the Great.
In the past year I have been in Poland three times and also in the Czech republic and Germany. In spite of obvious problems there is every indication of prosperity and economic growth. Indeed, I read the other day that Poland has the fastest growing economy in Europe, which I can believe. There is also an indication that those countries are coming together in a way never envisaged in the past. People in Poland are going to Germany to shop—and the other way round. I crossed the frontier from Germany to Poland and back again and I also crossed the Polish/Czech border. In spite of the nonsense which one reads in the media, even in newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph, in my experience crossing those borders is quick and easy. Formalities are minimal. The whole of this large area is coming together and only some idiocy by governments can stop the process.
I return to some of our media. All kinds of nonsense is written and implied about the situation in central Europe. Foolish assertions—such as that the Polish

93
border guards carrying Kalashnikovs with which they threaten travellers—are made which have no basis in fact and are mischievous if not downright malicious.
I was told by a friend who ought to have known better that one cannot park a car in Warsaw for five minutes before it is seized and driven off by bandits. When I went to Warsaw in my car last September I was understandably anxious but I noticed that cars were parked on and off the pavement in the city centre and elsewhere. Certainly there is a serious problem of car theft—there is here, too—but the assertion that one cannot leave a car for five minutes is nonsense.
I have said all that because there is a conception that Poland is a kind of "Wild East", which is damaging and untrue. It has problems with rising crime—do not we all —and for obvious reasons its problems are at present rather worse than ours. But it is working very hard to overcome those problems. On my visit last year to Warsaw with the IPU delegation I was impressed by its understanding of the situation.
Poland's biggest problem is the influx of about 8 million people from the former Soviet Union. They go ostensibly as tourists but not all behave like tourists except in one particular—that nearly all return home. But they are creating a problem especially in the centre of Warsaw and other large cities.
I return to my main theme; that Poland and her neighbours in central Europe ought to be brought into NATO or whatever security alliance succeeds or replaces NATO. We have at present the greatest opportunity for European peace and reconciliation this century. We ought to grasp that, remembering that our forebears failed to grasp a similar opportunity in 1918 with results that we still have to live with.
With regard to that, perhaps my noble friend would care to comment on a document which has come into my possession. It is the Joint Declaration of the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and Poland made in Warsaw this month. The document states that France and Germany will support Poland—and its associated countries of central Europe—in its application to join the EC, the Western European Union and NATO, given certain unspecified conditions. Are Her Majesty's Government aware of that declaration of intent? Do they understand its meaning and concur with its objectives?
It seems to me to be significant that the two major powers in north-western Europe, to which my noble friend Lord Beloff referred in a different context, are working to bring Poland and its central European neighbours into the military security system of western Europe. Those countries—Poland, the Czech republic, Slovakia and Hungary—are literally at the heart of Europe. On many occasions my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has affirmed his intention to bring Britain into the heart of Europe. That intention, which is geographically impossible, must be meant to be understood in a metaphysical or spiritual sense and apply not just to the EC.
I can say without fear of contradiction that Poland does not plan to change its present frontiers. Imperfect though they undoubtedly are, Poland is realistic enough to understand that it must live with them for the
94
foreseeable future. As I have already said in your Lordships' House, there are no frontier disputes in the area of central Europe to which I am referring. There is a Hungarian minority in Slovakia and a German minority in Poland, but I do not believe that they give any cause for great anxiety and would given even less cause were this whole area of central Europe to be brought within the EC/NATO framework. The threat in the East is dormant for the time being and now is the time to act to pre-empt any future threat from that direction. We may not have another opportunity.
I was included in the IPU delegation which visited Poland a year ago. We met many groups of people, both official and unofficial, but the one thing which we all agreed was that the foremost objective of our Polish hosts was that Poland should be in the EC by the year 2000. My noble friend Lord Beloff and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, had an exchange on that subject. I was inclined to warn my Polish hosts that perhaps they had not understood the implications of the Maastricht Treaty but I understand that they would rather have that than Russian domination.
Although I have my reservations about the Maastricht Treaty that was the message we received. I have no reason to believe that it has changed during the course of the past year. The desire to be included in the political and cultural area of western Europe is a continuing one in Polish history and one which the West has consistently ignored except in times of great peril, such as the Turkish siege of Vienna and the Battle of Britain.
It is in our interest to have the borders of the new Europe enlarged to contain these nations, whose history is in the western tradition. It is not a threat to Russia to say that we do not want her armies back in Warsaw, Berlin, Budapest and Prague. What were they doing there in the first place? I accept that the present rulers of Russia do not threaten western Europe but history should at least teach us to keep a wary eye on any resurgence of Russian imperial ambitions.
This country, at its best, has a reputation for generosity of spirit. We should conduct our affairs in the spirit of Fox, Pitt, Wellington, Nelson and Churchill and not in the mean-spirited pen-pushing ethos of a nation of bureaucrats. We have opened our arms to large numbers of ethnic minorities in this country with a generosity which is rarely applauded as it should be. Let us also open our arms to our friends in central Europe—our ex-comrades in arms and fellow believers in freedom—who have suffered so much for so long in the common cause of humanity.
7.40 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, in my contribution to this evening's debate I wish to focus on Her Majesty's Government's commitment to supporting the construction of a democratic society in South Africa. What has been achieved politically through dialogue and compromise since President de Klerk's speech on 2nd February 1990 has far surpassed most people's expectations. Last Thursday's agreement on the new interim constitution was an astonishing achievement, a great step forward. It was a great step forward in the

95
process of ensuring full democracy in South Africa. It has been hailed by many as the official ending of apartheid, drawing to a close 350 years of minority rule in that country.
The developments unfolding in South Africa have been rather like a delicate chess game or a jigsaw puzzle. However, it is clear that the options for the future will be fraught with danger and could, as in so many other so-called emancipated African countries, turn out to be disastrous.
My premise is that South Africa has just passed phase one of its move to full democracy and the country is now at the end of the beginning of the process, paving the way for the Transitional Executive Council—a multi-racial body—and the Independent Electoral Commission, which will oversee the run-up to the elections on 27th April next year and endeavour to prevent the intimidation of voters, candidates and political parties.
As architects of the new interim constitution, and having been on a rough roller-coaster ride over the past few years of negotiations towards achieving a constitution with checks and balances, I was indeed delighted that President de Klerk and Nelson Mandela were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize this year. It is that challenge of ensuring peace and stability, particularly in the run-up to the elections next year, which will be the essential key factor in the success of constructing a democratic South Africa.
With the Freedom Alliance, the coalition of Right-wing movements, conservative black homeland leaders and the Zulu Inkatha Freedom Party choosing not to involve themselves in the recent multi-party negotiations, the need has become all the more important now to placate their demands, especially following the extremist threats to derail the process by violent actions if their demands are not met.
In the past few days the ANC has had several meetings with leaders of the far Right, in particular the Afrikaner Volksfront, and it is to be hoped that the announcement in the press today of a possible plebiscite among Afrikaners next year on an Afrikaner homeland will thwart a violent backlash to the transitional programme.
What I have found remarkable over the past few years in South Africa has been the development of a culture of negotiation and compromise against a background of racial mistrust, anger and bitterness. The past year will be remembered in South Africa not just as the year when the interim constitution was agreed, when an election date was set, when the ANC officially called for the lifting of economic sanctions and when the good rains in the main broke the drought; it will be remembered also for the assassination of Chris Hani, the death of Oliver Tambo and the ongoing senseless killings in several of the townships, including the massacre of white churchgoers in Kenilworth in Capetown. So far this year more than 2,000 people have died in political violence in South Africa, despite the fact that the peace accord has been working in many areas. This year there will be more violent assaults and rapes per capita in South Africa than in any other country in the world.
96
One of the contributory factors to the violence has been the enormous number of AK-47 rifles that have been smuggled from Mozambique into South Africa. Added to that, many households are armed to the gunnels. There has been speculation that the United Nations may be proposing a plan to exchange money or food for arms in South Africa. That is one area which will be a major problem for the next government in the years to come: how to control the possession of arms, particularly the illegal possession of arms.
Despite those gloomy statistics, I believe that there is much to be optimistic about as South Africa moves into the next phase of achieving full democracy. The emergence over the past few years of a culture of negotiation and compromise has not just been in the political arena but also in the economic forum. In the past, economic disputes often ended in mass action and conflict. Now, in the main, they are managed and a satisfactory resolution is normally achieved.
There was an excellent article on that subject in the Financial Times last Thursday headed:
"From Civil War to Consensus".
Over recent years many forums have been established to promote and consolidate that culture of negotiation. Those include the National Economic Forum—the tripartite body where business, government and labour seek agreement on economic policy—housing, education and local government forums and, of course, the National Peace Committees.
As I notice that three noble Baronesses are to speak in succession after me, it is worth mentioning that women have played and will be playing a far more prominent role than in the past in the process towards achieving democracy in South Africa. That is not just in the political arena but also in the business community. Women make up 53 per cent. of the population in South Africa, and Nelson Mandela has committed himself to a non-racial, non-sexist South Africa. The National Women's Coalition, established last year, represents 55 women's groups and almost every political persuasion and sector in South Africa. One of its main goals has been and will be to draft a national charter of women's rights. No less than one-third of ANC candidates in the forthcoming elections will be women.
Time precludes me this evening from commenting on the checks and balances and flaws of the recently agreed interim constitution, other than to emphasise that that is a draft interim constitution laying the basis for five years of coalition rule during which time the final constitution will be thrashed out. Clearly, the international community will need to play a major role in the run-up to the elections in its observer capacity and particularly in the preceding days before the elections to ensure that intimidation is not continuing in many of the township areas. The Minister made mention of many international organisations that will be endeavouring to ensure that the elections are free and fair.
Most political parties are now actively involved in voter education programmes. However, one of the major problems facing South Africa is how the new government will be able to meet the expectations of the voters, particularly those previously precluded from the vote. With the unemployment rate, excluding the

97
informal sector, running in excess of 40 per cent. of the potential workforce, and with an estimated 60 per cent. of the population under the age of 23, the prospects for peace and democracy are critically dependent on the performance of the economy. That point was raised by the Minister in her introductory speech.
There have been encouraging signs that the economy has been clawing its way out of recession, and inflation is currently at around 8 per cent. The international community will have a major role to play in encouraging investment with South Africa. As the Minister mentioned, it is not just current investment; it is ongoing international investment which is needed, not just aid.
For job creation, emphasis will need to be focused on improving general education. International initiatives, such as Education Africa, which my noble friend Lord Marsh and the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, are currently promoting, are to be encouraged. The ANC has committed itself to providing free and compulsory education to all for a minimum of 10 years. For there to be sustained and increased international investment in South Africa there will surely need to be a climate of stability and certainly of economic and political policy. There must be certainty in those two fields. There will also need to be co-ordination among government, business, trade unions, the churches, NGOs and community-based organisations.
Against the culture of negotiation rather than confrontation that has been established over the past three years, I believe that those objectives are obtainable. The business community stands to play a vital role in the future of South Africa and could emerge as the most important element of civil society to ensure that the new government are accountable for their actions—particularly in the field of economic and fiscal policy.
Nelson Mandela has committed the ANC to honouring all agreements reached at the multi-party constitutional negotiations and to accommodating all reasonable demands. In his words:
"We want to build a nation and that means compromise".
That conforms with the words and spirit of the opening lines of the Freedom Charter:
"South Africa belongs to all who live in it—black and white".
I believe that there is a common desire for peace, stability and prosperity in South Africa. With the foundations laid, and the ongoing support of Her Majesty's Government, I am confident of sustained democracy in that country.
7.53 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, at this late hour when everything that needs saying has been most eloquently said, those noble Lords who are still here will be relieved to know that I shall be brief. I shall start, as did my noble friend Lord Montgomery last Thursday, by putting the horse before the cart; as, indeed, the defence White Paper also set out to do last summer.
There has been a change and a thaw with the collapse of the iron curtain and the Cold War, but it is like the global warming effect which has had the interesting (but
98
if you think about it, obvious) result of melting the icebergs in the Arctic and thereby making the seas much colder. With the melting of the Soviet glacier of the Cold War, we are left with many rocks and large lumps of ice which were formerly in the glacier, but which are now all banging about together. Alternatively, to use another metaphor, with the break-up of the iron curtain, the world is full of a lot of rusting old iron. In any event, paradoxically, it is a much less safe place. We, like Hadrian's little white wandering soul, creeping about in the dark, are ever more vulnerable.
My noble friend Lord Carrington has said that in foreign affairs the unexpected always happens. Having been described in the Wall Street Journal this month in a rather pejorative way as a fortune teller and reader of tea leaves, I feel as qualified as anyone to predict what might happen. I should perhaps disclose to your Lordships the fact that I was taught by my grandmother, who was taught by her aunt, who was taught by Madame le Normand, Napoleon's fortune-teller. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead (who is not at present in his place), will be reassured to know that I am sitting on the Government Benches.
The world today is an uneasy place. There is not one threat to stability, but many. Nuclear weapons proliferate—China is still testing—despite the welcome decrease here and in the United States and also in Russia. India, Iraq, Iran and Israel are all in the running. Further, what are the dangers of North Korea, the snout of the dragon, as a latter-day Vietnam? Libya certainly has chemical weapons. So we are not geared to an all-out assault from one place. The hurricane is around us and may blow from any direction.
Therefore, let us not sit smugly back and talk about peace dividends in the middle of a whirlpool. We still have the best armed forces in the world—their courage and expertise is second to none. We should not be nibbling at their morale like Treasury mice at the feet of chocolate soldiers.
Marching with the war widows down Whitehall on Armistice Day, some of them old, some young and with children, but all of them proud to be British and proud of the men who died for them; or marching with the 10,000 veterans, the young men lining the streets representative even now of those delivering aid to war-torn Bosnia or standing firm for Britain in the streets of Belfast; the sailors who man our ships in the seas of the world and those who fly our planes in the air, let us not cut our defence spending any further. Let us cherish them and not throw away the flower of our nation and our hopes for the future for an extra one pence in our pocket.
7.57 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, having just returned from advising political parties in Russia on how to run democratic elections, and having been privileged to be involved in the development of the democratic process in many countries in East and Central Europe and in South Africa, I, like other noble Lords, would welcome a specific debate on the new democracies and their development to full democracy, including the position of women.

99
However, today I shall concentrate my remarks, as other speakers have done, on aid; that is, not on the financial complexities, as did my noble friend Lord Rea, but on the basic principles and the effects of the decline in the levels of Britain's aid programme. As a rich nation we have a responsibility to work for a new agenda for international economic justice which could release millions of people in the developing world from their lives of debt, disease and poverty, and from not knowing whether they will eat today or whether their children will see tomorrow.
Yet again we have been told and have been assured that the Government will maintain a substantial aid programme to promote sustainable development and good government. But the actions of the Government belie the words. Despite the Minister's words on the importance of aid, I would ask the Government why it is necessary time and time again to call on them to carry out their promises? I make no apology for doing so once more, nor for reminding the Government of those promises. Throughout the 1980s we were told by the Government that their official objective was to reach the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP "when economic circumstances permit".
However, when the economy grew, we were told,
"that the aid ratio was declining because our GNP was growing so fast".
The commitment to honour the Government's pledge was recognised in last year's Tory party manifesto and confirmed yet again by the Prime Minister in Rio. Yet every year Britain has slipped further away from that target. The Prime Minister, on his priorities for public expenditure, stated:
"Our review of public spending will be careful and thorough. There will be two criteria—are any changes fair, and are vulnerable people protected".
Yet once again Britain's aid is under threat. I reiterate that in 1992 the aid budget was frozen at £1,900 million. On that basis Britain's aid as a percentage of gross national product will fall to its lowest level ever at 0.26 per cent. That is a far cry from the target of 0.7 per cent.
Overseas aid should not be a soft target for cutbacks in public expenditure. The very poor abroad should not be penalised. Are they not the vulnerable people that the Prime Minister believes should be protected? Given Britain's growing multilateral commitments, any cuts or continued freeze would not only have a disproportionate effect on our bilateral aid programme but could also mean further cuts in real terms of 10 to 20 per cent. A reduced aid budget means reduced influence.
Britain is cutting aid at a time of-unprecedented need in countries such as Bosnia and the Sudan and at a time of increasing opportunity in Ethiopia, Eritrea and South Africa. The welcome end of conflicts combined with the spread of democracy gives cause for hope. It also provides the opportunity for European co-ordination of the many competing bilateral aid programmes.
However, the diversion of resources from the developing world to Eastern Europe, coupled with growing expenditure on emergencies, means that there is less money for long-term development work. As the noble Baroness indicated in her opening address, there is a great need for long-term development aid. It takes a long time to develop institutions and infrastructure
100
that the poorest countries need and to develop the health and education of their populations. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, has said,
"More prosperous countries, with better educated and healthier people, are better able to cope with the effects of disaster when it does strike".
She could have added perhaps that they also make better trading partners. Failure to provide the financial resources for development now could lead to untold costs in emergency and remedial work later. It is cheaper to invest now than to pick up the pieces in the future.
British industry is a beneficiary of our aid programme, particularly the power, construction, mechanical and electrical industries. In terms of Britain's global economy, the aid programme generates economic activity for the UK equal to the value of the aid programme. Action to increase aid and promote trade is essential to development. As has been previously stated, debt is probably the largest single obstacle to recovery for developing countries. Falling commodity prices and rising import costs in the 1970s led many governments to resort to heavy borrowing. As a consequence, over the past 10 to 15 years, the amount of debt owed as a proportion of the value of exports from developing countries has almost doubled.
In his moving speech, my noble friend Lord Cledwyn illustrated the plight of the people of Africa. It cannot be acceptable that Africa spends approximately 30 per cent. of its hard currency earned from exports on debt servicing. That is four times more than it spends on health care. Such hard currency should be ploughed back into fruitful investment projects instead of the debt crisis being allowed to become one more chapter in the history of exploitation and under-development. As my noble friend Lady Blackstone indicated, a sharp reduction in the debt burden must be a priority for the international community.
While welcoming the agreement made by the G7 in July this year to discuss deeper debt relief for the world's poorest nations, it is disappointing that three years after the Prime Minister first proposed the Trinidad Terms, no substantial progress has been made to implement the package that would have helped to reduce the debt of the most indebted low income countries by two-thirds. A timetable is needed for full implementation of the Trinidad Terms as the first phase of a complete write off of debt for those countries. Perhaps the noble Viscount can indicate in his reply whether such a timetable is being considered. It would also be useful to hear that the British Government intend to follow through their initiative and take a lead in convincing their partners in the international community to, at the very least, fully implement the terms. They will be working with the Clinton Administration which has indicated its sympathy for debt reduction measures.
In the past 20 years the proportion of people living in absolute poverty has declined from one in two to one in five. But the number living below the poverty line has increased to an all time high of 1.2 billion people. More than a quarter of the world's people are plagued with premature deaths through insanitary conditions, appalling housing, lack of clean water or starvation. One

101
woman per minute dies during pregnancy or at child birth and these tragic conditions are maintained and exacerbated by the lack of foreign currency to re-invest in essential long-term investment projects. Because of unfair global opportunities these people are unable to trade out of poverty and repay debt.
Britain remains a powerful nation with strong influence in the European Union, the United Nations Security Council, the G7, international financial institutions and the Commonwealth. Our membership gives Britain a unique range of responsibilities. We must not shrink from those responsibilities in the fight against world poverty. By failing to meet aid targets the Government are denying their responsibility towards the poorer countries of the world and risking Britain's place at the top table. A frozen or reduced budget has serious implications for the countries in need and for this country's international standing. Britain has a growing economy but is far down the list of OECD donor countries and falling.
Undoubtedly, the Government face difficult economic decisions, but in the long term sustainable developmental progress will bring stability and security. The decision facing the Chancellor next week about the future of UK aid in this year's Budget should be a simple one. My fear is that he will not grasp the opportunity it offers.
8.9 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I find it a sad irony that when the Secretary of State visited Russia in September, General Grachev, according to Tass, described a letter of intent to re-train Russian officers made redundant from the armed forces as,
"an example of military co-operation in practice between Britain and Russia".
According to Kokoshin, the Deputy Defence Minister, they,
"exchanged views on defence budgets and how to structure armed forces during sharp personnel cutbacks".
The Secretary of State assured him, accurately, that we have experience of such problems. Finally, the Secretary of State noted that:
"it was difficult for him to imagine Russia not taking part in the North Atlantic alliance's affairs".
The Secretary of State was speaking to military leaders in a country where, unlike Britain, the Prime Minister—Chernomyrdin—speaking in the National Security Council on 12th October, said that the council regarded the military doctrine as its top priority, followed by urgent steps to pull the country out of the economic crisis. He said:
"When we make up our mind on the military doctrine, we will know what to do about other issues".
He called for a fresh and frank statement on the needs of the Russian army, including financing. When those needs were known, the Government and the President would see what they could do.
On 15th November Deputy Premier Soskovets said that the state order for the defence industry in 1994 will be preserved at the 1993 level and that new types of weapon and combat hardware will be included in the state order to preserve the defence industry's high
102
scientific and technological potential. No doubt the nine new nuclear submarines a year for the next 10 years will be part of that.
On 17th November President Yeltsin followed that up by announcing to the army commanders that Russia would be adopting a five-year conversion programme in the near future which would take into consideration the need to create the most advanced armaments for the Russian army. He added that a smaller army must be more mobile and that the level of its technical equipment needed to be sustained and enhanced. As Queen Victoria might have said, how different from our own dear Government.
It seems more and more fruitless to argue, as I shall however continue to do, that we are dismantling both skilled forces and defence potential in industry which cannot be replaced and destroying any influence we might have brought to bear in the world when the world is a dangerous place. Russia's military doctrine recognises that, so long as nuclear arsenals have not been eliminated by all states, the possibility of a nuclear war should be planned for. It states that:
"The objective of the Russian Federation's policy in the field of nuclear weapons is to eliminate the danger of nuclear war and the use of nuclear weapons by deterring the unleashing of aggression against the Russian Federation and its allies".
Russia retains the right to make a first nuclear strike. Today we are dealing with a regime in Russia whose actions and intentions are reassuring, but there have been two major crises (in 1991 and 1993) when that regime could have been replaced by something far less friendly.
Russia is on the one hand gradually rebuilding a successor to the USSR in the CIS, and is having to fight a series of brush fires on the borders of the CIS which have already led her to press for a revision of the CFE treaty to allow her to increase her agreed strength. Within Russia there are, according to one of President Yeltsin's advisers, Mikhail Maley:
"taking account of redundancies, around 5 million people employed in the defence industry and about 1 million in the nuclear industry".
Russia continues her drive to find new markets for sophisticated arms, particularly in the Middle and Far East, and especially in China, of which Russia now takes a pragmatic view, and India, which has paid over a further 5 million dollars for deliveries of cryogenic engines and related technologies under the 1991 agreement. No official ban on the continuation of that contract work has yet apparently been implemented, despite an earlier commitment to do so.
Russia is, alas, not the only country to present a potential threat in terms of nuclear security. It is not reassuring that in October 1993 Ukraine was continuing to threaten to retain 46 Soyuz-24 strategic missiles, each with 10 nuclear warheads.
I do not suggest that at present the Russians are planning for more than the capacity to defend and to deter. That, however, is the power that we seek for our own forces. There is no time now to consider the implications of Russia's policy on NATO, which is to join it before or with the eastern European countries (a classic case of neutralisation of the enemy), its policy on Europe, which is again to join it before the eastern

103
European countries, or its policy on peacekeeping, which is to be recognised as the prime peacekeeper in the territories of the former Soviet Union, with UN and CSCE observers making all its actions respectable, and, with luck, UN funds to pay for the operations.
Azerbaijan has rejoined the CIS. Aliyev, its new President, is an old Moscow hand who secured a vote of 98.8 per cent. (quite like old Soviet times), and one must wonder how happy Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh will be that Russia now aims to be the "honest mediator".
I can only beg my noble friend the Minister to take strategic, not short-sighted tactical, decisions; to recognise, as the Russians do, that a sound defence capacity is a very cheap but effective way of exerting influence and securing respect in the UN, with the US, in Europe, in NATO and in the world generally; and above all to recognise that it is too early to take irreparable steps in terms of defence cuts. I beg him to remember and observe what the gracious Speech said—that this Government attach the highest importance to national security.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, the breakthrough in the Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts, which Her Majesty's Government have pledged to support, was the fruit of direct and secret negotiations. The United States played a pivotal part at the outset and no doubt will play a decisive part in the future. The role of the European Community and of Great Britain is now being seriously discussed and scrutinised in the region. Having just returned from Israel and a short trip to various European countries, I feel that there is room for all the constructive, sensitive and symmetrical help that can be given.
The financial aid promised by the Community for the immediate and medium-term infrastructure needs of the West Bank and Gaza is not only acknowledged by the Palestinians but also welcomed by Israel. The Israelis are aware that only when standards of living and conditions of work for the Palestinians can by upgraded will there be genuine scope for regional co-operation. Mr. Shimon Peres and his close aides who were involved in the Oslo negotiations make it quite clear that for such co-operation to be realistic and eventually to prosper it must not be seen as some form of Israeli economic neo-colonialism.
Prime Minister Rabin, in a robust speech, called on the Community to show its goodwill towards Israel as well as towards its neighbours. The free trade agreement signed between the Community and Israel in 1975 was at that time a breakthrough in Israel's economic and political relations with Europe. The adjustment of that agreement now is a necessary consequence of the many positive developments over the years. Israel welcomes the Commission's decision to endorse the mandate for negotiation of a new agreement and is looking forward to the commencement of those negotiations. However, there are serious anxieties that they might not go far enough. The Israelis feel, quite rightly, that given Israel's considerable volume of trade with the Community, and given the large imbalance of that
104
trade—Israel imports about £6 billion of goods and services from the Community each year and exports less then half that value into the Community—a necessary adjustment should be made and be dealt with as a first priority. Over 75 per cent. of Israel's agricultural exports go to the Community. The very fact that Israel already has a free trade agreement with the Community should enable it to be first among the countries with which the Community is ready to reach preferential agreements in the future.
One of the most encouraging developments is Israel's current rate of economic growth. The economy grows at a rate of 6.5 per cent. per annum. The vitality and quality of Israel's economic effort bodes well for the future. It is in that context that I should like to say a few words about bilateral relations between this country and Israel.
No one doubts this country's manifest interest in advancing peace, but there are still areas where relations can be greatly improved and misgivings allayed. The British arms embargo against Israel is anachronistic. Discrimination against Israel in the context of continuing and massive sales of arms to Arab countries is sending the wrong message both to Israel and to the business community in the United Kingdom. Britain's attitude to the Arab boycott is, rightly or wrongly, regarded by Israelis as lagging behind that of other major European countries so far as concerns legislation or indeed overt and outspoken disapproval. Israel took great risks upon itself in its bold agreement with the PLO. Further steps are expected; and yet the response so far by the Arab states has been to strengthen their overt commitment to the Arab economic boycott against Israel. There is something albsurd about a situation in which a boycott office in Damascus still masterminds and monitors trade restrictions when at the same time world opinion is calling for a huge financial levy in favour of the region.
The Washington Accord has important passages on economic co-operation. Here, Britain, with its influence in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia, should be seen to take a more determined stand. Bilateral economic co-operation must be further stimulated. There is scope for more joint venture and more official encouragement of trade. That would be beneficial for both countries and create more jobs in Britain. I understand that the Secretary of State is planning a visit to Israel shortly. That visit will be very welcome and, it is hoped, may clear up some of those outstanding issues.
However, let us not forget that there are stark and sombre facts which threaten progress. The daily acts of terror causing the deaths of Israelis and Palestinians, and the determined and unscrupulous opposition by Arab rejectionist states, could yet derail the process. That terror must be condemned without reservation. I hope that the British Government will use their influence in convincing Chairman Arafat how important it is that he should be seen to condemn terrorism without reservation. We must not underestimate his task. He has the formidable task of recruiting new forces of law and order. He has the formidable task of converting a

105
resistance movement into an embryonic entity of self-governing administration. However, he must attempt the task; and he must be helped.
Israel is vulnerable because she has a democratic government accountable to an almost inquisitorial Parliament. Israeli opposition is articulate and sometimes violent, but I, for one, believe that the Rabin/Peres Government has matters in hand. However, it needs moral support from all well-wishers of peace. The outside world, Europe and Britain, must prove by compassionate understanding, by deeds and gestures, by rhetorical restraint in report and comment, that it will help the moderate parties on both sides, phase by phase, to carry the negotiations through to that peace that we all so ardently desire.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, it was stated at the beginning of the most gracious Speech that the Government attach the highest importance to national security. Some of your Lordships have already emphasised that point today. The gracious Speech continued by announcing major aspects of the Government's defence policy including our support for NATO, the promotion of the extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty including weapons of mass destruction, the support of the United Nations in undertaking peacekeeping and preventive operations, and the maintenance of the fight against terrorism throughout the United Kingdom.
Those commitments are covered by our three defence roles recently amplified in the Statement on Defence Estimates 1993. I believe that our defence policy is clear and that our armed services are keenly aware of the three roles to which they now contribute and will continue to do in the future. However, undertaking those roles and acting in accordance with Government policy needs strong, superbly trained and well-equipped forces with an adequate manning ceiling below which there can be no reduction. However, I should like to warn your Lordships of some aspects that have already started to weaken the newly proposed force levels and some other aspects which may contribute to causing an eventual loss of credibility in our armed services.
The critical matters affecting the Army and the security of the nation to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention this evening are the following: the consistent erosion of the quality of the Army; the damage that further reductions dressed up as savings efficiency packages will do to the army force structure; the dangers of any decrease in our military intelligence gathering; and the harmful effects of a lack of funding to our research and development organisations and any significant reduction in the Territorial Army and reserve forces.
I refer first to the consistent erosion of quality of the Army, which results in a decrease of credibility, a lack of self-confidence in officers and men, a reduction in their morale and a loss of faith by those serving in the Army. That in its turn leads them to a belief that no future career structure remains, resulting in departure from their regiments. It is alarming but not perhaps
106
surprising that those now deciding to leave the Army are officers and men of the highest quality and ability. Is it surprising that even more officers and soldiers are considering leaving their regiments when one hears statements that armoured regiments may be further reduced by some 16 tanks and around 64 crewmen? Those possible future reductions would naturally affect the eight remaining in-service armoured regiments, six of which amalgamated during this year involving the loss of about 50 per cent. of their officers and soldiers through necessary redundancies, to form one regiment from two. It is a well-known fact that men and women in the armed services have great pride in themselves and their units. They do not speak of their concerns in public. I keep in touch with the Army and I have never seen morale as low as it is. There is a distinct requirement for the Government to take some constructive and positive action now, otherwise the rapid drain of those leaving will not be stemmed and the replacements, if attracted, may more than likely be of an inferior quality, no longer providing the high qualities of leadership which have traditionally been the hallmark of the regiments of the British Army.
I should now like to turn to a phrase known as "efficiency savings". I do not wish to become involved in commenting on public expenditure statements. I am fully aware that there is approximately a £50 billion deficit in our balance of payments. However, there is a very real danger that some so-called efficiency savings could be harmful to our armed services.
There may well be ways of achieving greater financial savings, but that must not be in the form of cuts to the detriment of our front line troops and their weapon systems. It must be clearly understood that those front line troops are not just the tank crewman and his tank, the infantryman and his rifle, or the gunner and his artillery piece, but all the other close support, logistic and administrative troops which are deployed in the front line area. Those vital support troops are not only within the combat zone but also man the line of re-supply that ensures that all front line troops can function and fight effectively within the combat zones. Front line troops in this context are the teeth arms, the supporting arms and the logistic and administrative troops that produce well balanced brigade groups with an all round military capability structured to fight the battle effectively in high or low intensity operations.
There has already been a considerable degree of what is now known as "hollowing out". Some examples of that have been the eating into reserves of ammunition, the financial saving on training by carrying out less field training, a reduction in the holding of spare parts, and imposed delays in placing orders for new weapon systems and equipment. For instance, when will a decision be made to purchase Challenger II tanks for the remaining eight armoured regiments; or has it been decided that there is to be a mixed tank fleet of Challenger IIs and refurbished Challenger Is, which is an expensive and not particularly cost-effective option? If that hollowing out is not redressed the Army will become, in effect, no more than a paramilitary force, a gendarmerie totally unfit for any high intensity

107
operations and questionable as to its effectiveness for low intensity operations such as fighting terrorism and peacekeeping duties.
I do not wish to be seen to be unduly pessimistic, but unless urgent steps are taken to redress the measures of hollowing out we are heading down the road to becoming an impotent army with no punch at all—a hollow tree with only its bark—the proverbial bark being far worse than the proverbial bite—or, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said, "a paper tiger".
Unless there is a reduction in commitments there must not be any further cuts to the army force structure. Our resources are still over-stretched and I am still unable to see when the coveted goal of 24 months between unaccompanied infantry tours will be achieved: probably not for at least another seven years, even taking into consideration our forthcoming withdrawals from Belize and Hong Kong. To illustrate that, since November 1991 one infantry battalion has had seven months accompanied in Germany, then six months unaccompanied in Northern Ireland, then 10 months accompanied back in Germany; and now this same battalion has recently started a six-month unaccompanied tour in Yugoslavia. I expect other battalions have experienced, and will continue to experience, similar tours of duty. In fact, it is even possible that our commitments could increase in the future.
I would point out to your Lordships that cutting troop levels, commitments and capabilities are not the only ways of making savings. Savings could be made in a number of other ways by forming more joint headquarters and by merging the Army Air Corps with the Royal Armoured Corps, as both corps have the same roles of reconnaissance and the destruction of armour. Further savings could be made from the sale of barracks, housing estates and small and unrealistic training areas. In essence, if the Army is to be seen to be a credible and powerful force there should be no further cuts to the current force structure, and contract support should not be envisaged for front line units.
In my remaining minutes I should like to touch on intelligence, our reserve forces and research and development. First, intelligence. In such an uncertain and unstable world it is essential that the flow of military intelligence continues to provide the Government with information from which assessments, future plans and policy can be made. In this context there should be no cut in the funding of our essential intelligence facilities and our assessment capabilities. There should be no relaxation in our special relationship with the United States of America and no reduction in the number of military attaches deployed with our embassies abroad, who contribute so much not only in their reports but also to defence sales.
Secondly, our Territorial Army and our reserve forces welcome the proposals made in the reserve forces paper, which was recently published. Your Lordships are well aware of the keenness and efficiency of the Territorial Army and the reserves. They are well respected by local government and in many towns are the focal point of community life. They provide a
108
footprint of discipline and organisation which is of significant value across the whole of the United Kingdom. They provide that vital back-up to the regular forces in time of tension. Future legislation may make it easier to call out reserves rapidly and should enable them to reinforce and serve with regular units on, peace-keeping and operational deployments. With the Regular Army being reduced to 119,000, there is a need for a strong Territorial Army and reserve forces to bring the Regular Army up to war establishment. Any significant cut to the establishment of our reserves would undermine the fighting efficiency of the regular forces, which have been reduced too much already.
Lastly, I should like to mention research and development in the context of the time it takes our defence manufacturing base to produce weapon systems and the cost of running weapon programmes. The costs are high, but it will be necessary to continue with research and development although it may not be necessary to implement the costly production stage. It is essential that with 10 to 15 year lead-times the Government keep pace with sophisticated technological weapons being manufactured in other countries.
Our defence forces will not be seen by the rest of the world to be credible unless we possess weapon systems which are as sophisticated, if not more so, than those of any potential enemy. Statements such as "the forces of Russia have deteriorated to the point where they pose little threat to Western Europe" are unrealistic and irresponsible. Research and development in Russia continues at a fast pace, and a central part of their recent strategic doctrine is that Russia seeks to maintain the former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries as their sphere of influence.
In conclusion, in these unpredictable and dangerous times we cannot afford to be complacent about our defence forces. They must be strong, recruited to establishment, equipped with the most modern, sophisticated weaponry and superbly trained. We need an army of 125,000 with our present commitments. This will provide our country with credible defence forces to back up our foreign policy. The high price of freedom and peace has to be paid, so let us ensure that we pay enough. A few days ago we were commemorating all those who gave their lives in the supreme sacrifice. Surely now is not the time to betray those valiant people, our proud traditions and our history for the sake of a billion pounds or more. I pay great tribute to our armed services, and without strong defence forces we place the security of the United Kingdom at peril.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, new decisions on defence will no doubt be announced next week in connection with the Budget. That means that our debate is perhaps a little more speculative and a little less important than it otherwise would be. I have a feeling that a further debate on defence may well follow the Budget, but we on these Benches will await the Budget decisions and judge them on their merits. A number of speakers tonight have not waited for the announcements but have

109
declared in advance that they will oppose any further cuts in defence expenditure. That applies, I think, to the service chiefs.
There is some danger in these "knee jerk" reactions of opposition to defence cuts of any kind. When Options for Change was published we on these Benches criticised it on certain issues and criticised it particularly for the disproportionate cuts made in the British Army. We discussed the overall size of the cuts and declared that in current circumstances, with respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Park, the overall cuts were modest. That reaction was, I believe, more appropriate than the savage condemnation of the overall scale of the cuts made in Options for Change heard from a number of noble Lords opposite and some on the Cross Benches. Those spokesmen have evidently reloaded their guns in anticipation of the Budget next week but they lack credibility for not sniping at the obvious individual follies of the Government's defence policy and instead subjecting it to indiscriminate bombardment.
We have heard, particularly from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and from the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, very powerful attacks on the inadequacy, as they see it, of the provision for our armed forces. Almost everything that they said, and every criticism that they made, was wholly justified on the assumption that, behind their speeches (and this goes for other speeches made by noble Lords opposite) we must somehow maintain our traditional global peacekeeping role. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, used a very good phrase in his first question to the noble Viscount. He asked whether the Government would undertake to maintain our global role in its historical tradition. If that is our aim and our obligation, of course our armed forces are inadequate. No one can doubt that. But how far is that assumption true? That is the key point of the debate. I shall be interested to hear the noble Viscount respond to that question. I hope that he will not evade it; I hope that he will tell us what the Government's position is.
No one denies that our forces have a unique skill and experience in peacekeeping. Let us compare Bosnia and Somalia. One could not have a better illustration. We all pay tribute to the marvellous work of our forces, to be seen also in Northern Ireland, in this particularly testing role. But that does not mean that we can maintain our traditional global peacekeeping role. Far from it. It is far beyond our economic, political and military power. That is nothing to be ashamed about. It is not as though we were in absolute terms any less rich or powerful militarily than we were. On the contrary, we are richer and more powerful militarily than we have ever been before. But that is not to say that our traditional role can be maintained.
We had our industrial revolution first; and we became the most powerful industrial country in the world. We maintained a traditional global peacekeeping role, and we did it extremely well. We should be proud of that. We should be prouder of it than most British people are. But what happened then? Other countries had their industrial revolutions. Other countries passed
110
us. Today we have slipped in the pecking list. We may regret that. It is not our fault. But we have to adjust to it.
My complaint is that so many speakers opposite, in this and in previous defence debates, have not adjusted to Britain's different position in the world today. All kinds of appalling things will happen unless we face reality and make the best of our current position, abilities and power. Otherwise, as was illustrated by a number of speakers, we shall have ambitions far beyond our military capability.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying in terms that it is the policy of his party that we should no longer retain the peacekeeping role? Is the answer yes or no?
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, if the noble Lord refers to an individual peacekeeping role, I would say no. We have to share with our allies. We have to act with the United Nations. That is precisely the point I am making. The traditional peacekeeping role is something that we exercised with great skill and some success; we can no longer exercise it. The longer it takes noble Lords to understand that reality and adjust to it, the greater is the danger that we shall find ourselves involved in operations worldwide which we do not have the political, economic or military power to sustain.
I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, has returned to her place. I remind her that in our last defence debate I expressed the hope that she would be the United Kingdom delegate to the non-proliferation conference. I expressed the view that she would be best qualified for it. But I added a warning; namely, that before she took on that distinguished job, she should insist on certain changes in Britain's nuclear weapons policy. I said that she should insist that the Government cancel their project for a sub-strategic air-based nuclear missile. I said that she should insist on reducing the firepower of the nuclear deterrent. I insisted that Britain should agree to support a comprehensive test ban treaty. All those points are essential. To go to the non-proliferation conference without doing any of those things would be to expose the British delegate to the most humiliating opposition from the scores of non-nuclear signatories to the treaty who are very sensitive and suspicious about Britain's nuclear role. They would ask: why Britain and not us? And why has Britain not fulfilled its obligations under the treaty in relation to disarmament, testing and so on?
I invite the House to consider what has happened since I gave that friendly warning to the noble Baroness. She has persuaded the Ministry of Defence on all three points. TASM has been abandoned; the firepower of the Trident submarine has been cut; and now we support a comprehensive test ban treaty. We should all like to congratulate the noble Baroness for the masterful handling of the Ministry of Defence that she has displayed. I hope that she will not take it amiss (she may think that I am ungrateful) if I now suggest to her five further changes in Britain's nuclear weapons policy, which, if she carries them out as she carried out the other

111
three, will ensure that she leaves the great conference not merely without humiliation, but with considerable credit.
Very briefly, these are the three points. The non-nuclear signatories will ask: why are there at this moment four or more nuclear missile submarines, French, British and American, patrolling the high seas, confronting the Soviet Union in the old Cold War manner? She will be asked that question. What is the answer? Is the threat of Soviet nuclear attack so imminent that to deter it those submarines must be kept at sea and not in port? Will that be the answer? It makes no sense at all. The noble Baroness will be asked: why four or more submarines when one submarine can inflict unacceptable damage on the Soviet Union? My first suggestion to the noble Baroness is that before the non-proliferation treaty conference she should consult with her allies and end this absurd over-insurance in nuclear missile submarines and patrols.
My second point is: let the Government speed up the current British-French consultations on nuclear weapons policy. They have been going on for a year now, and nothing seems to have come out of them. Both countries have the same deterrent aim. Why should they not share the task? And why should the noble Baroness not be able to go to the conference with a decision on reducing the joint capability of the two countries? That is another, I hope, constructive suggestion.
Thirdly, why do the Government go on saying that the sub-strategic nuclear weapon, the WE 177, the free-fall bomb, will remain in service until the year 2005? We know now that the Government have taken the advice they were given from these Benches and have cancelled TASM. They have also taken our advice and decided to equip the Trident submarine in the sub-strategic role. But there is no case whatever for duplicating that role by equipping the Tridents and continuing with the free-fall bombs. Why therefore, before the non-proliferation treaty, do not the Government agree to phase out the WE 177 within the next few years? That is my third constructive suggestion.
Fourth, the non-nuclear signatories intensely dislike secrecy in nuclear weapons policy. Why do not the Government do as the Americans and the Russians do? Why do they not reveal, not just the firepower ceiling of the deterrent, but the actual firepower that they propose? Why do they not also reveal the form of verification that they propose for that reduction? Unless there is verification, under the START regulations the reduction is invalid.
Finally, what about the comprehensive test ban treaty? We welcome the statement in the gracious Speech that the Government now favour serious negotiations and will support a test ban. But what about a moratorium? The French, the Russians and the Americans have declared a moratorium. Before the non-proliferation conference, why do not the British Government declare their own moratorium? Admittedly they cannot test anyway, because the Americans will not allow it. But that should not detract from the simple point of principle that we too should be in favour of a moratorium. Those are five points which will enable the
112
noble Baroness to emerge with the utmost credit from the conference. I warmly recommend them to the Government.
Finally, perhaps I may say one word about conventional weapons policy. We are very encouraged to note in the gracious Speech that the Government,
"will work to secure NATO's adaptation to the changing security environment, and to continue developing the operational role of the Western European Union".
I wonder whether the noble Viscount can spell out a little what is meant by those words.
It is widely believed, except possibly by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, that the threat of Soviet conventional attack in Europe has become even more remote today. A war scenario in which the rapid reaction corps plays an essential part as a unit is becoming more and more difficult to imagine. Do the Government have in mind that WEU may earmark from the rapid reaction corps joint task forces for United Nations work outside the NATO area? If so, it seems to me—I believe that my noble friends will agree—to be a constructive idea. Such joint task forces would be better equipped for low intensity warfare, would be more transportable and above all, being under WEU, would have full French participation. If that is what is in the Government's mind we shall warmly support it from these Benches. It would also make specialisation easier and allow a fairer distribution of the manpower burden, which would be of great value to this country and ease our defence budget.
I have tried to make some constructive suggestions to the Government. I hope that the Government will carry them out. If they do, they will not only find support on these Benches; they will make a considerable contribution to the future peace.
8.54 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. It has necessarily been somewhat diffuse, dealing as it does with a mass of foreign policy issues and also defence. We have had the advantage of hearing two excellent maiden speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, both of whom—and a clear common denominator appeared in their speeches—spoke with vast experience of the need to enhance British trade. One spoke of trade with Latin America and the other vis-à-vis the Cairns Group generally. The Government would do well to heed their excellent advice. Perhaps I may also say that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, posed a number of salient questions which I hope that the Government will answer. He spares me the task of having to repeat rather similar questions on the defence issue.
One of the more remarkable speeches came from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who took a somewhat idiosyncratic view on Cuba, which we are somewhat unused to hearing from noble Lords opposite. It was all the more interesting in that it came not only from a government supporter but a very important government supporter.
I want to dwell first on certain foreign policy issues and then move on to defence and security. Essentially I shall deal with some of the omissions in the

113
Government's position so far as the speech of the noble Baroness who initiated the debate is concerned. First of all, all sides of the House are delighted with the progress that has been made in South Africa, with democracy now well in sight. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, who speaks with particular experience in these matters, was particularly refreshing.
However, I want to start with certain questions affecting the Middle East. Everyone who has spoken said how much they rejoiced in the courage displayed by the Labour Government of Israel and by Mr. Arafat. But we have to recognise that the present position is far from easy. It is a very fragile peace. Not only do the efforts of the Government of Israel and Mr. Arafat need to be buttressed, but also the support that has been given by the Government of Egypt, the significance of the recent election results in Jordan and the moves that have been made by the Government of Morocco to sustain the peace process all need to be nourished. I hope that the future will reveal a somewhat more helpful and realistic attitude on the part of the Government of Syria.
Everybody recognises the risks that are being taken by Mr. Arafat and the PLO and the Government of Israel. There are risks so far as their own people are concerned. There are risks that those who have a vested interest in seeing the talks break down—there are rather too many such people—should not in fact have their views sustained. There are grave risks; and so far as concerns the PLO, it is right that the European Community should have responded with a five-year programme of support—500 million ecu—in order to build up the infrastructure in the areas that will be controlled by the PLO. That is certainly a priority. But I do not see any kind of movement on the part of the European Community as a whole or on the part of the Government here to recognise that the boycott—inimical to the purposes of the Treaty of Rome without any shadow of doubt, discriminatory and indeed I would say illegal—is wholly incompatible with the peace process.
The opportunity is now here for the European Community and its member states to ensure that the whole Middle East will be able to benefit from the increased trading opportunities which the ending of the boycott would certainly provide. The peace process will mean great opportunities for companies in Europe operating in joint ventures with countries throughout the Middle East. It will open up great benefits as those countries expand their trading potential. Why cannot the British Government and the European Community now say, using their considerable influence on Arab states which still insist on operating a boycott, enough is enough?
I should now like to turn to certain matters affecting the European Union. We heard another good speech in many ways from the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, a former colleague of mine. I am glad to say that we worked fruitfully together when we were in the Commission. He was right to point out that the opportunities that were there for this country to have the central bank located in London have been lost because of the purblind position adopted by the United Kingdom Government in the negotiations at Maastricht. To think
114
that this was "game, set and match", as the Prime Minister described it, is a little fanciful. We have seen the first result and it is a sad reflection on those negotiations that the central bank is to be situated in Frankfurt. As the noble Lord said, the Government have themselves to blame. I thought he spoilt everything, or nearly everything, with a somewhat misplaced and irrelevant attack on the Opposition. It saddened me personally, but I suppose that it was a somewhat unavailing attempt on his part to persuade his Conservative colleagues to take him seriously, as they should; but unavailing, I fear, it will be.
The noble Lord was right to reflect on the fact that we are now in the lower half of the European Union in terms of prosperity. Indeed, the myth about the economic miracle was shown to be quite absurd when over the past two years Britain received 40 per cent. of Objective 2 funding. That does not speak well of the economic management of this country by the Conservative Government. But there was also the other opt-out. I shall not go into it in any detail because we have had many debates about the opt-out over the social chapter. The Government say in the gracious Speech that they look forward to the accession of Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden to the European Union. What on earth do they think those four countries are going to say about the social chapter? They will not side with this Government about it—that is for certain. The four of them will reinforce the view of the other 11 that the social chapter is critically important in the building of a Community, a point we have made over and over again. It is high time, as my noble friend Lady Blackstone said in her remarkable opening speech, that the plea of Howard Davies of the CBI and many industrialists should be observed by the Government. There has to be an end to the deplorable rhetoric in which certain Ministers engage in order to gain cheap standing ovations at the Conservative Party Conference and which do nothing to bring us to the heart of Europe. It is hugely damaging and it deters British industry from successfully using European Community law and institutions both as a sword to attack abusive behaviour from others and as a shield to defend its own interests. If it is constantly told that this is a faceless bureaucracy with overwhelming numbers and that it will not be listened to, why on earth should it go to seek advice and support from the European Commission?
Remarkable speeches were made on the aid budget by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn—a most moving speech, if I may say so—and by my noble friends Lord Rea and Lady Gould. The aid budget has been constantly and deliberately eroded, notwithstanding anything that the noble Baroness may say. I fear that what she was in fact arguing today simply represented a euphemism for further cuts in overseas aid in next week's Budget. It is also idle to say that one of the criteria for granting aid has to be economic liberalism, to cite what the Foreign Secretary had to say only the other day. What they are arguing is hopelessly inconsistent with protestations from the Prime Minister at the Earth Summit and in their own manifesto that the Government would implement the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product.

115
I wish to say a few words about Cyprus. The Government have been pusillanimous in the extreme about the Turkish occupation of Cyprus. They have failed to denounce a continuous violation of human rights and the persecution of the Kurdish people. Why is that the case? Why can they not stand up for those human rights? They have failed to do it significantly over the years. With regard to the former Yugoslavia, we have had recently frightening posturing by the leaders of Croatia. The president himself has welcomed the achievements of the Croatian administration under the Nazi hegemony. Why are we so mealy-mouthed about the abuses that are constantly committed by the Croatian Government? We are right in condemning Serbia, but we should not be selective in our condemnation.
So far as concerns the United Nations, it can only function properly if there is a greater commitment of purpose. That commitment of purpose must also be reflected in ensuring that political dues are paid promptly. The Government should use their influence, if they have any, with the United States to ensure that the serious arrears which have accrued there are put at an end. Why are the Government not now responding to the need to support UNESCO? This issue has been raised in the House by my noble friend Lord Judd and myself, and I must say that the response, or non-response, from. the Government was rather alarming. UNESCO has put its house in order. It demands support.
I turn from that to certain defence and security issues, although several salient points have already been raised by my noble friend Lady Blackstone and by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. I want to turn first to the statement in the gracious Speech about the reforms which are to be made as regards the secret and intelligence services and GCHQ.
The gracious Speech states:
"My Government will introduce legislation to place [both of these] on a statutory basis; and to make further provisions for the oversight and accountability of them and the Security Service".—[Official Report, 18/11/93; col. 3.]
Why have they waited so long? Of course the oversight and accountability of these organisations are right in principle. We have learned from bitter experience with this Government that high-sounding principles from them can be denuded of virtually all meaning when the legislation arrives. So we shall examine that legislation with the utmost care. Why have they taken so long in remedying an appalling wrong done to those employed at GCHQ so that they can enjoy the democratic right of belonging to the trade union of their choice? Is it contemplated that that is now what will happen and that they will have that right? Certainly they are entitled to it.
As regards the comprehensive test ban and the non-proliferation treaties, the Government have pledged themselves to encourage international responsibility in conventional arms transfers. How are they to go about encouraging that noble purpose when we have in the background the evidence of total irresponsibility and deceit which have been practised by the supply of arms to Iraq as revealed in the evidence given to the Scott Inquiry and the conflict of evidence between civil
116
servants and Ministers who were determined only in their resolve to mislead Parliament? How can we expect any credibility to be lent to this purpose by such a Government?
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has spoken about the need to have a total ban on all nuclear testing. He asked why the Government are so shy about responding to that when in fact other governments have been far more forthcoming.
The question of Russia is a matter where again the Government have shown far less commitment in practical terms than have the government of the United States, for example. The United Kingdom has recognised that there is a need to deal with the unsafe storage of nuclear weapons. It has committed £30 million to help in that purpose. The United States Government are providing £1,000 million in order to deal with that problem in Russia alone. It is a clear threat to all of us and it needs a more positive response from the Government than has been witnessed so far. By 1997, 4,000 nuclear weapons are due to be destroyed under START I. So far progress has been limited, to say the least. Can we expect the Government to make a more positive contribution in that regard?
When my noble friend Lady Blackstone opened this debate she adverted to the need for a defence review, which has been echoed on all sides of the House. It is a suggestion which has been supported by large segments of the military community and by many in the Conservative Party, as well as by Opposition parties. Why is it so strenuously resisted by the Government? After all, defence policy is but an arm of foreign policy, because that is what it is all about. It is because the objectives of British foreign policy are so obscure that the Government's defence policy makes so little sense.
We hear about all sorts of things from the Government in their reflections on defence, from medals to weapons. We even heard the other day from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces about gender-free testing. That is not contributing very much to the wisdom of the nation about their purposes in defence policy. What we do not hear is what our Armed Forces are supposed to be doing. We cannot know unless foreign policy is formed on a less ad hoc basis than is currently the position. What specialisation should Britain adopt in conjunction with our NATO partners, or do the Government reject specialisation altogether? What is wrong with the idea of a common procurement policy through NATO?
We must recognise that our resources are very limited and that they and our forces have to be matched against the risks and responsibilities that we assume. It is not enough to go on paying tributes—justified though they are—to the resolve and often heroism of people in the Armed Forces. But sometimes I feel that they all too often presage further cuts—a bromide for each brigade which has to go. We live in a dangerous world, and if we cut our defence expenditure there needs to be a basis for some rational explanation of those cuts. They should not simply be dictated by Treasury-oriented cuts. We need a full and detailed review of our commitments and resources. They must be brought into conjunction.

117
It is critical to our defence and trade effort that we have a viable merchant marine. The Minister in another place was asked about this the other day and said that he was satisfied that our response from the merchant marine would be sufficient in time of emergency. That was based on a survey carried out by the Department of Transport. I do not believe that that is the case. I have been involved in matters affecting merchant shipping for many years now, and it is not only my view but the view of the industry, the trade unions and of virtually all experts that the Government are misleading the House about this issue. We do not have the resources in this field. Our merchant marine has got into a sorry plight and it has had no help whatsoever from this Government on any substantive basis. What the Government are saying in that regard simply does not stand up.
Finally, I should like to deal with the question of defence diversification. A great deal of progress has been made by local authorities, trade unions and progressive defence companies on defence diversification work, but they cannot do it on their own. We need a defence diversification agency. That view was expressed pretty strongly by Mr. George Walden, MP, on 18th October. In response, the Secretary of State said, "We leave these matters to market forces". That is utterly absurd. One hundred thousand or more jobs have been lost in the defence industry. Some of those jobs could have been diversified into other purposes. The United States has a defence conversion commission, easing and helping defence workers into civilian occupations. These are important questions. They have been raised repeatedly by my colleagues in another place, by my noble friends in this place, by members of the Liberal Democrat Party and by a number of Conservative Members of Parliament. However, in two hours 12 minutes of ministerial speeches on the defence review, neither the Secretary of State nor Mr. Hanley could say anything more about defence diversification than the words to which I have already referred. It is quite scandalous.
This debate has depicted the proximity of foreign policy and defence policy, yet that proximity is simply not matched in the perceptions of these issues which have been enunciated by Ministers. There are, of course, a number of issues on which the House is at one and I am pleased that that should be so. However, there are also significant differences, and it is right that we should explore how those differences might be reduced. That has been the benefit of this debate today.
9.17 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, this has been a long debate and the hour is late. A great many of your Lordships have spoken and of course, as one would expect in a debate in your Lordships' House, a great deal of importance and interest has been said. I hope that your Lordships will not expect me to cover every point that has been made with such force and eloquence. If your Lordships will forgive me, I will simply try to answer as many as I can
118
in a relatively short time, and perhaps my noble friend Lady Chalker and I can be allowed to write to those noble Lords whose observations I fail to address.
Before I tackle a number of the points that noble Lords have made during the course of the evening, I wonder whether your Lordships will allow me to add my congratulations to the two noble Lords whose distinguished maiden speeches we have heard today. Having heard them today, we can be sure that we can look forward to their future contributions in your Lordships' House. I was particularly interested in the obvious knowledge which the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, displayed on the important question of Latin American trade, especially when one considers the long history of British investment in Latin America during the 19th century in particular. I was interested also in the observations of my noble friend Lord Chesham on the GATT round. He made an extremely valuable contribution.
I had been going to say that my noble friend Lady Chalker concentrated, on foreign affairs in her speech and I was going to skip over the enormous vistas of foreign policy which she so ably encapsulated for us this afternoon, but I have been dissuaded, to a degree, from doing so because many of your Lordships have raised matters, especially on aid, which it would be remiss of me not to attempt to answer at least briefly.
I was interested in the speech of my noble friend Lady Young. I was aware of her initiative in leading a delegation of British businessmen to Cuba earlier this year. Every noble Lord will agree with her about Cuba's potential, especially if, like me, noble Lords are fond of the odd Cuban cigar. She will know at first hand of the measures being taken in Cuba to open the door, at least partially, to foreign trade and investment. She will be aware, far more than am I, of the considerable problems that still exist in Cuba. I hope that she will be able to address those questions in your Lordships' debates as time goes on.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady Gould, and the noble Lords, Lord Bonham-Carter, Lord Cledwyn, Lord Rea, and others unleashed attacks on this country's aid budget which struck me as being more in sorrow than in anger. Far be it from me to talk with great authority on this important and complicated subject, especially with my noble friend Lady Chalker sitting on the Front Bench beside me, but noble Lords should be aware—I believe that they ignored the fundamental points—that we are still an important aid donor. We are the sixth biggest donor in the world. That shows considerable dedication, and, when compared with other countries, could be defined as at least punching our weight on that important matter.
We have taken a number of initiatives. The increase in the aid budget in real terms has been 10 per cent. since 1987–88. I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, when he said that aid was an investment. I am certain that noble Lords who have experience of investments, whether purely commercial or with political payoffs, as aid assuredly does, will recognise that a foolish lack of control of investment can have a most debilitating effect on the people whom the investor is trying to help or support. Therefore, I make no apology for my noble

119
friend's sensible focus on ensuring that the money she gives out in her aid programme is spent in the most efficient way and on those most in need.
Figures related merely to a country's GNP are not necessarily the only sensible way to measure aid. Cash aid of 0.7 per cent. of GNP is still the target. That was a question asked by one or two noble Lords. But there are other devices which are at least as helpful. Some noble Lords and noble Baronesses referred, rightly, to the debt burden from which a number of developing countries have suffered for decades. That is why I am pleased to be able to remind your Lordships that this country has forgiven over £1 billion of debt to a number of countries. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's Trinidad initiative, which is in the course of negotiation at the moment, envisages a further forgiving by the international community of 1.75 billion American dollars of debt. That must be a sensible way to approach such matters.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before the Minister completes his response in respect of aid, will he tell the House from where he obtained the figure showing that the UK comes sixth in terms of aid to the third world? The figures that I have examined indicate that we were eighth but have fallen to thirteenth place in the league table of aid to third world countries.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I understand that no less a body than the DAC Committee of the OECD is the source of that assertion. I am sure that the noble Baroness will consider that that body is at least respectable enough for her to be able to accept the figure that I have given.
Perhaps I may pursue a number of your Lordships' remarks on foreign policy. I was touched in particular by the speech of my noble friend Lord Holderness, whose knowledge of matters affecting the disabled is well known to your Lordships. I am also grateful to him for giving me notice of his comments. Her Majesty's Government, like the rest of this country, have immense sympathy for those who suffered injury as a result of war, in particular the savage conflict in what used to be Yugoslavia. Your Lordships will appreciate that the programme of evacuations is co-ordinated by the UNHCR. At the request of Mrs. Ogata this country received 68 evacuees last year. I am delighted to be able to tell my noble friend that we have offered to receive up to 1,000 more evacuees plus their dependants this year. We shall arrange appropriate treatment through the NHS. I hope that my noble friend will therefore feel that we are doing our bit, although in view of the size of the tragedy no doubt it never seems enough.
I wish to make one further remark to the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Wolvercote, who asked about the funding of the Commonwealth Institute. For a number of years the institute has been highly dependent on the UK Government for finance. Indeed, its buildings have suffered extensive deterioration. There has been a significant downturn in the number of children visiting the institute, but I am delighted to say that that downturn has been arrested by the policies of the excellent new director-general. That individual is working on some good new ideas for developing the Commonwealth
120
Institute as a more commercially self-sufficient institution. We need to improve the current funding in a number of ways, in particular as regards a greater and better use of the site. My noble friend is greatly encouraged by the ideas of the new director-general. We are equally determined that the Commonwealth Institute should not close. Work is going on to find alternative means of financing a more up-to-date institute which will be more in tune with the Commonwealth of the later 1990s and the next century.
I turn to defence matters. I feel that I have perhaps too frequently wearied your Lordships with the Government's views about the new strategic circumstances in which we find ourselves as a result of the fall of the Soviet empire. Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I shall not attempt to repeat myself, especially as our geostrategic analysis has not altered materially. Nevertheless, I wish to emphasise that our reliance on NATO—a point that I have been careful to make in a number of debates in this House—is, as ever, the key to our strategic approach. Certainly we regard the transatlantic connection as the key to European and Western stability.
I wholly agree with a number of noble Lords who observed that the situation has changed and, therefore, NATO must adapt itself. I was interested in particular in the remarks made by my noble friends Lord Belhaven and Stenton and Lord Campbell of Alloway, and I was delighted to find that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, also expressed an interest in that subject.
As noble Lords will know, there is a proposed summit meeting in Brussels early next year in which the future of NATO will be discussed. Therefore, it is particularly timely that our American allies have made their proposal for what they call a partnership for peace. That is an interesting initiative. It provides a useful and interesting contribution to debates on NATO.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and, to a lesser extent, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned the question of the WEU. There is a clear danger as regards the independent development of the WEU in that unless it is developed with some care it could undermine what is to us the key transatlantic connection which makes NATO such an important cornerstone in our defence policy. Nevertheless, it is clear that the WEU can and should have an important role, partly as the European pillar of NATO but, at the same time, we should also examine—and we are doing so—the development of the WEU's operational role. As noble Lords will know, the guidelines for that were laid down in the Petersburg Declaration of 1992.
Military tasks have been identified which are appropriate to the European forces acting under the authority of the WEU council. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that those include humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping, and tasks for combat forces in crisis management.
I must resist the little trip down memory lane, along the path of ancestor worship, with which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, tempted me during the course of his remarks. I should say only that the great Lord Salisbury was entirely convinced that this country was

121
a European power. I am not entirely sure that he would feel that there should be an over-arching power in Europe with a highly taxed, high social cost economy which is beginning to threaten the competitiveness of Western Europe in view of what is happening in America and the Pacific Rim. Therefore, as a man who was keen to make sure that the balance of power in Europe was preserved, I doubt that he would see the kind of things which were negotiated away at Maastricht necessarily in the same way as did the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. Perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me if I say that that argument perhaps belongs more outside the Chamber than inside it.
It has become a truism to say that the world today is a complex place. If we are to take the measures that seem to flow from our changed circumstances, we must do so with immense care. That is perhaps especially so if they imply a reduction in the military power that we have available to us.
Nowhere is that more true than in the field of nuclear policy, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway observed. Noble Lords will be aware that we regard our nuclear deterrent as the cornerstone of this country's ultimate security. In previous debates I have tended to make a bald assertion. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me this evening to elaborate just a little because it is clearly a matter of some interest notably to the two Front Bench speakers who have just sat down.
Noble Lords will be aware that we have already reduced our ground-launched, tactical nuclear forces to zero in the past three years and have announced a substantial reduction in our air-delivered, nuclear bombs. We have also made an important change to our sub-strategic capability in the longer term by communicating to your Lordships our decision not to replace the WE177 free-fall bomb when it comes to the end of its natural life. As a result of that decision, the Trident system (whose inherent flexibility is a great bonus both operationally and in budgetary terms) will take on the sub-strategic role after the WE177 is eventually withdrawn from service. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I am much obliged. The equipping of Trident will be a very quick affair; indeed, it will take perhaps a year or two. Therefore, why do we need to continue with the WE177 as long as that? Why do we need to duplicate the business? Surely it would be much cheaper and quicker to go over to Trident.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, perhaps I may send the noble Lord the timetable for the delivery of the remaining three Trident boats. I am sure that he is already aware that it is more than a matter of a year or two. We already have a vanguard delivered, but there are three more boats and their delivery will be spread over the next decade. I believe that it is more than a year or two. Therefore, that tends to coincide quite nicely with the expected life of the WE177 bomb.
We are happy that the changed international situation justifies that decision. However, as many of your Lordships observed—notably the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall —the world is an unpredictable
122
place. I believe that it would be extremely foolish to close our sub-strategic options for ever. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that we must, therefore, preserve our capability to design, develop and produce nuclear weapons in the future. We shall keep our sub-strategic policy under review, safe in the knowledge that, should the international situation change, our policy will also be able to change.
Our sub-strategic policy is important. However, equally important is our strategic deterrent and the Trident system upon which we have spent so much taxpayers' money over the past few years. Your Lordships will be aware that last week my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence made an important speech in which he discussed our nuclear policy. It enabled him to make a consequential announcement about the level of nuclear capability that we will deploy on the four new Trident submarines. Incidentally, I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that if we need one nuclear submarine on station at all times, then we need, four to be certain of that and, therefore, to be able to provide the deterrent that we believe to be so important.
Your Lordships will, rightly, expect me to take this opportunity to repeat my right honourable friend's conclusion in this House. I should like briefly to explain the reasons for it. We believe that, just as nuclear deterrence ultimately ensured our victory in the Cold War, deterrence remains our ultimate guarantee of security in the unpredictable world of today. My noble friends Lord Belhaven and Stenton and Lady Park of Monmouth have already observed that Russia will remain the pre-eminent military power in Europe, with very large nuclear as well as conventional forces.
I submit that we would be very negligent indeed if we ignored that fact, although we would be equally remiss if we failed to take advantage of the increasing openness of Russia by trying simultaneously to forge a new relationship with that country designed to remove the mistrust and antagonism between us. I was especially interested by the remarks in that context made by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Perhaps the only remark that I can make in response to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is to say that perhaps he underestimates the extent of what we are doing in Russia and the extent of our contact on matters such as resettlement. It is a skill which we have developed with remarkable effectiveness over the past few years. I think it is worth pointing out to your Lordships that over 75 per cent. of those who leave the services find jobs within three months of leaving and there is a very much higher proportion after six months.
Today, just as before the Wall came down, the basis and the reasoning for the existence of the deterrent and our determination to maintain it remain the same. The idea that nuclear weapons are uniquely able to prevent major war is at the heart of our policy. We undermine that idea at our peril and it is for this reason that a declaration of no first use of nuclear weapons would undermine the basis of our policy. We cannot allow the impression that a major conventional war in Europe is a safe option for an aggressor.

123
I sometimes wonder, when I listen to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, as he sounds triumphant at the various suggestions which he says have been made to us over the years and which we have adopted, whether he will not rest until he has finally got rid of every element of our nuclear arsenal over the next year or two. I hope I am wrong about that but I must say I am beginning to have my doubts.
We have striven to establish an effective framework to introduce international stability in nuclear matters and the non-proliferation treaty must play a pivotal role in those efforts. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that it is for this reason that we shall indeed seek an indefinite extension of the treaty in 1995 and that we shall endeavour to achieve universal membership as well as trying to strengthen the associated safeguards regime. I would further say to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew—I must say that once in a while I find that his unqualified support worries me rather more than it should—that there are other measures that could contribute towards halting the spread of nuclear weapons. For instance, we are ready to take part in negotiations aimed at a verifiable comprehensive test ban. We are hopeful about the prospects for a verified cut-off in the production of fissile material for explosive purposes and we will continue to discourage and help to resolve the many disputes worldwide that encourage nations to develop and buy nuclear weapons.
There is certainly instability and uncertainty. However, as a number of noble Lords have said this evening, there is also hope. There can be no doubt that this country is safer today from direct attack than for many decades. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that we have always made it clear that our deterrent is a minimum deterrent and that remains the case. What the word "minimum" means in this context has always been and remains ultimately a matter of judgment. I would remind your Lordships that uncertainty matters as part of the force for the ideology of deterrence. It is for that reason that we are reluctant to make the kind of declarations on moratoriums that the noble Lords, Lord Mayhew and Lord Clinton-Davis, have suggested that we should.
My right honourable friend has exercised that judgment and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, he has quite rightly taken due care, and therefore time, before announcing that each Trident submarine will deploy with no more than 96 warheads, and indeed may carry fewer than that. However, I must stress that it remains our policy not to specify precisely how many warheads the boats will actually carry.
I am conscious of the time and I apologise, first, for the hoarseness of my voice and, secondly, for the length of time I have taken to address myself to what I feel is an extremely important subject. I know, however, that nuclear matters have long interested your Lordships and your Lordships' House. That is an interest I greatly welcome and I hope your Lordships will forgive me for taking a little trouble over this important subject.
A number of other important questions have been raised during the course of this afternoon and I had hoped that I would be able to address myself a little to
124
them. I merely finish by saying that I shall write to noble Lords on a number of points, notably the question of reserves. Noble Lords will be aware that on 12th October we published a consultative document entitled Britain's Reserve Forces: A Framework for the Future. This provides what we believe to be an effective framework for reserves. However, I must emphasise that the document does not address the question of numbers. I must tell my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that he will have to wait a little longer until I am ready to make an announcement to your Lordships.
As I have said, your Lordships addressed themselves to a number of other questions, notably the eternal old chestnut of the defence review. I would say to the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Mayhew, and others, that this is a tempting thing for everybody in the Ministry of Defence to indulge in. I say to your Lordships merely that a defence review takes time. The speed of events worldwide is great. Rather than reviewing what we are able to do in the defence field in a static manner I hope that we can introduce a rather more flexible and adaptable system, which will effectively be the management of change which, as noble Lords will know, is a fashionable concept in management circles these days.
Of course I pay my tribute to our forces. Everybody who does so in your Lordships' House can be relied upon to admire the quality of the forces we have at our disposal in this country. Yet often in the same breath those who admire them and the way they are led accuse the forces of being extravagant, bureaucratic and sybaritic. Am I alone in detecting an inconsistency here? Of course no organisation is perfect. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, accepted that, and my noble friend Lord Vivian made some interesting suggestions in that regard. The services are the first to admit that there is always room for improvement, and improvement in cost-effectiveness and efficiency has never been at a higher premium than today.
I hope that when we examine the question of the number of civil servants in the MoD our critics are aware that a civilian is cheaper to employ than a man in uniform and that a civilian who fills a job in the tail releases a serviceman for the front line. If our critics are aware of that they have a peculiar way of showing it. I should like to pay a particular tribute to our civilians, many of whom are extraordinarily able and very hardworking. They have improved their efficiency dramatically of late in the face of smaller budgets and the consequent incessant turbulence and uncertainty. An acknowledgment of that fact would at least be equitable and would do at least as much to encourage them to redouble their efforts as uninformed criticism.
Finally, it is right that we should have discussed defence and foreign policy together. That was a point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. One policy cannot be coherent without the other and I look forward to many more debates in the context of both. Like the noble Lord, I expect that after the Budget, when we are able to discuss the expenditure plans for the Ministry of Defence, we shall have other opportunities to return to this important matter.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.—(Viscount St. Davids.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

Croydon Tramlink Bill [H.L.]
  Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [H.L.]
    London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
    Presented, read a first time, passed through all remaining stages pro forma and sent to the Commons.
Humber Bridge Bill [H.L.]
  London Docklands Development Corporation Bill [H.L.]
    River Calder (Welbeck Site) Bill [H.L.]
    Presented, read a first time, read a second time pro forma and reported from the Committees.
London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]

  Malvern Hills Bill [H.L.]
  Presented, read a first time, read a second time pro forma and reported from the Select Committees, and recommitted to Unopposed Bill Committees.
  House adjourned at twelve minutes before ten o'clock.

  ANIMAL PROCEDURES COMMITTEE: CHAIRMAN
  ANIMAL PROCEDURES COMMITTEE: CHAIRMAN
  ECOLABELLING BOARD: APPOINTMENTS
  ECOLABELLING BOARD: APPOINTMENTS
  LANDFILL AND INCINERATION OF WASTE: REPORT
  LANDFILL AND INCINERATION OF WASTE: REPORT
  ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS
  ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE REVIEW PROGRAMME
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE REVIEW PROGRAMME